ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Amber Rudd: According to my Department’s latest fuel poverty statistics, less than 5% of fuel-poor households in England have a minimum energy efficiency standard of band C, leaving 2.2 million households below this standard. Bringing these households up to the minimum standard is a challenging ambition, but one we are determined to meet. That is why we have been clear that available support needs to be focused on those most in need. We will be reforming both the renewable heat incentive and the energy company obligation, to make sure that both schemes are sufficiently targeted towards the fuel poor and to tackle the root causes of fuel poverty.

Rupa Huq: The Government recently spent £50 million of taxpayers’ money assisting a bunch of big businesses such as Sainsbury’s to change their lightbulbs. Meanwhile, they halved home insulation funding in the last Parliament, which was meant to help families out of fuel poverty. I will not ask how many Tories it takes to change a lightbulb, but does that not show whose side they are on?

Jim Shannon: The Energy Saving Trust has a useful website that directs people to the boiler grant scheme that we operate in Northern Ireland—a package of energy efficiency and heating measures is tailored to each household. Will the Minister consider that Northern Ireland example and consider providing something similar on the mainland UK?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend has worked incredibly hard to support local communities in having their say on the siting of wind farms. The Department for Communities and Local Government updated planning guidance alongside its written ministerial statement on 18 June 2015, giving local authorities the final say. Now that the Energy Bill has completed its Committee stage, with my hon. Friend’s support, I can tell him that we are making excellent progress on delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment.

Andrea Leadsom: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to some of my excellent hon. Friends, who are superb constituency MPs. We will have to agree to disagree. I am sure he would agree, however, that the role of an MP is to represent the interests of their constituency as they see them. We have now struck the right balance between the country’s need for superb renewables—it is now a very successful sector—and the need of local communities to have their wishes and their environment taken into account.

Callum McCaig: Prior to the Energy Act 2013, Scottish Ministers had full control over the renewables obligation. That power was removed on the clear understanding and promise that there would be no policy implications. Why was that promise broken, and will the Minister commit to backing the Scottish National party’s calls for that power to be returned to Holyrood as part of the Energy Bill?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the reason we are closing the subsidy for onshore wind a year early is in great part to avoid the additional costs to the bill payer of extra deployment beyond our calculations of what could be expected. This is about trying to keep consumers’ bills down. We have had a number of debates about fuel poverty, and striking that balance is absolutely vital. It is in the interests of the whole of UK that we do not keep burdening bill payers with more costs.

Andrea Leadsom: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, onshore wind has already been deployed to a great extent. As I have just said, it is already at the level of deployment we expected to see by 2020, so it is right that local communities’ views should be taken into account. With hydraulic fracturing, however, absolutely no shale gas extraction is taking place anywhere in the UK at the moment. There are no wells, and there is not even any exploration, yet it is vital to the UK’s energy interests that we explore this home-grown energy, which could be vital for jobs, growth and of course energy security.

Amber Rudd: I do not share the hon. Lady’s views. The whole purpose of the capacity market is to guarantee security three or four years out and that is exactly what we are delivering. As I said earlier, however, having had two capacity auctions so far, we will be reviewing how we can improve so that the third delivers even more certain security going forward.

Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which gives me the opportunity to point out that diesel was in fact 1.5% of the capacity market—a very small amount. However, it is absolutely essential to make sure that we have no risk at all to security, which is why diesel was included at that stage. I cannot give him an exact timeline, but I can say we are working on it intently at the moment and will be coming forward with proposals shortly.

Lisa Nandy: It is with sadness that I stand here without Harry Harpham in his familiar place. He was my Parliamentary Private Secretary and a much-loved and valued member of the shadow Energy team. Owing to his background, Harry never let us forget that energy is about people. Last month, he told the Yorkshire Post that he would be the last deep coalminer elected to this place. Our promise to Harry is to ensure that the voice of working people remains at the heart of the energy debate. I will miss him enormously. We will never, ever forget him.
	The capacity market was supposed to bring forward new investment in gas power stations and ensure that we have enough back-up power stations in case of a power crunch. We know that it has failed on the first count. Now, one of the companies contracted to provide back-up capacity, SSE, has pulled the Fiddlers Ferry power station out of the scheme, throwing the Government’s entire policy into doubt. Will the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that no other power stations will pull out?

Andrea Leadsom: Energy storage was identified in 2012 as one of the eight great technologies where the UK can lead the world, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am a very keen supporter. More than £80 million of public sector support has been committed to UK energy storage research and development since 2012. We now are looking at what more we can do to improve the incentives for electricity storage in particular. We will be publishing a call for evidence soon. I do hope he will put his thoughts into that call for evidence.

Andrea Leadsom: As I say, we will shortly issue a call for evidence on energy storage at grid level—at battery generation level—to try to ensure that we give as much scope and capacity to energy storage in the system. At domestic level, people are starting to look at those systems and, as part of the improvement of house-building performance, builders are required to look at other opportunities such as battery storage, solar panels and the like. There will be more work on that, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is still at a fairly early stage as things stand.

Andrea Leadsom: I certainly would not. Since 2010, £52 billion has been invested in renewables. The pipeline is still enormous. There are lots of new projects that will be coming to the fore over the next five to 10 years. It is simply not true to say that support for renewables is in any sense dropping off a cliff. The advantage of energy storage will be to deal with the intermittency of renewables, so it should be a win-win for the UK.

Andrea Leadsom: Our priorities are to decarbonise at the lowest price while always ensuring our energy security. That is why we have taken steps to end new subsidies for onshore wind. It was interesting, after my right hon. Friend’s announcement, to hear companies almost immediately seeking a subsidy-free contract for difference, which suggests that our analysis that this industry can stand on its own two feet was correct. We are calling it a market-stabilising CfD and we are listening carefully to industry on how it can be delivered.

Andrea Leadsom: I know that my hon. Friend has big constituency interests in the success of this industry. I can reassure him that our tariff reset was built on a huge data set submitted by industry and, in terms of domestic rates of return, nearly 5% will still be offered for well-sited projects. After our announcement, the Solar Trade Association said:
	“The new tariff levels are challenging, but solar power will still remain a great investment for forward-thinking home owners”.

David Mowat: What representations she has received from her international counterparts on the proposed closure of the UK’s coal-fired power stations by 2025.

Amber Rudd: I start by expressing my sympathies for all those workers in my hon. Friend’s constituency who have been impacted by the recent announcement of the closure of Fiddlers Ferry, as well as of Ferrybridge. On different countries in the EU making different choices about how to deliver their renewables targets, it is up to them to address how they reduce their emissions. Germany, for instance, is also having an enormous amount of solar. It has 52 GW of solar at an eye-watering cost of €10.5 billion.

Jeff Smith: The question is how we phase out coal use. Will the Secretary of State be taking new legislative measures to deliver on the Government’s commitment?

Amber Rudd: On coal—I think that was the subject of the hon. Gentleman’s question—we will be consulting and looking at the different methods we might or might not need. Those may be regulatory, or they may be legislative, but we have an open mind about how we achieve these things. That consultation will begin shortly.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will know about the recent announcement of the closure of Rugeley power station, which is half in my constituency and half in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling). The station was sited there in the first place because of a coalmine, which, like many others throughout western Europe, is long gone. However, the closure may mean that up to 150 people are made redundant, although ENGIE says it will try to redeploy them elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend commit to speak to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about actively playing a role in making sure that those people can be re-employed somewhere else?

George Kerevan: Given that the timetable for the closure of coalmines is linked to the construction and bringing online of new nuclear power, and given that the board of EDF—a cash-strapped company that is dripping with debt—has this month yet again postponed giving a green light to the construction of Hinkley C, will the Minister commit to meeting EDF’s board and reporting back urgently to the House as to what the project’s status actually is?

Alan Whitehead: The Secretary of State, in her energy reset speech, said that taking “coal off the system” by 2025 will
	“only proceed if we’re confident that the shift to new gas can be achieved within these timescales.”
	Bearing in mind that no new large gas-fired power station has commenced building in the past six years, and that the last two capacity auctions have underwritten the building of only one power station, which will probably not be built, what plans does she have to procure the building of new gas-fired power stations to ensure that her pledge is actually met?

Andrea Leadsom: The Government do not intend to introduce national electricity distribution pricing as this would weaken each network company’s local accountability to its customers and risk an overall increase in network costs across Great Britain. We are currently consulting, however, on the level of protection provided to consumers in the north of Scotland, which amounts to an average of £41 per household this year.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I point out what she said just before Christmas:
	“It is not right that people face higher electricity costs just because of where they live”?
	I agree with her. Why does she not now take action to introduce fairness into the electricity market? Why are people in the highlands and islands paying 2p per kWh more than people elsewhere? Why are people in my constituency being discriminated against? Do the right thing and create a national market.

Andrea Leadsom: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman —we have had this discussion a number of times—I sympathise with his point, but he needs to appreciate that a national charge would mean lower charges in some areas and increases in others. Specifically in Scotland, 1.8 million households would face higher bills while 700,000 would see reductions. This is a very serious problem; he cannot just wave a magic wand and have us change it.

Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. We will engage with the industry in order to reform these grants—the renewable heat incentive and ECO, the energy company obligation. The Sustainable Energy Association is one of the stakeholders we will work with to make sure that our reformed system delivers even better value for the people who are really in need.

Amber Rudd: I did receive the petition yesterday. We have already taken steps to help people in park homes by ensuring that they are eligible for the warm home discount of £140 and can apply for ECO where appropriate. However, I am always looking for opportunities to be more helpful and to give more support for people in need, so I will look carefully at the petition.

Matthew Pennycook: The Data Communications Company is an integral part of the roll-out of the Government’s smart meter programme, but it is now nine months behind schedule, and the delay is narrowing the window for the installation of SMETS 2 meters, with the risk that any additional cost might be borne by consumers. At the very minimum, can we have an updated impact assessment to reflect these delays and ensure that we are getting value for money for customers?

Andrea Leadsom: I am impressed by my hon. Friend’s managing three F-words in one parliamentary question. It is vital for local communities to have access to the facts about fracking and our stringent regulations, and I congratulate him on organising those important events. We are working with the regulators to make sure that they have every opportunity and encouragement from the Department to engage with the public. The Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the Oil and Gas Authority and Public Health England regularly attend public meetings such as the one he mentioned, and they will continue to do so.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman is a real challenge to, but a role model for, the House in the work that he does. I genuinely congratulate him and wish him a very happy birthday. In terms of the appeal, he has set out exactly what is supposed to happen. Local communities have their say and feed into the process. Developers can appeal, of course—it is right that they should be able to—and the inspector can turn it down. There is an appeal process. I am not sure about the specifics of the case he mentions, but the point is that democracy is done, and is seen to be done. That is very important.

Cat Smith: The Government’s advisers have warned them that if global temperature rises are not limited, there will be a big increase in flooding in the UK. The effects of flooding were felt acutely in the Lancaster district during Storm Desmond, when our substation was flooded and we lost the electricity supply for three days, affecting tens of thousands of homes and businesses. Will the Secretary of State commit to upgrading our adaptation plans, including our flood defence budgets, especially those for defending our electricity supplies?

Amber Rudd: I am aware of the impact of flooding in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I remember her speaking during the debate that we had on the subject with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	The best way to address dangerous climate change and its potential impact on extreme weather events is to get a global deal, which is why we have been so focused on trying to do so. I reassure her that I will work closely with my colleagues in DEFRA to ensure that we have a national adaptation programme in place.

Amber Rudd: I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s catastrophic view of the progress that we have made. We already have nearly 25% of our electricity coming from renewables, and we believe that we may well exceed our target of 30% by 2020. In terms of the overall renewable target, I hope he will welcome, as I do, the fact that we have already exceeded our interim target, which was 5.4%; we are now at 6.3%. However, we are aware that we need to make more progress, and we have set out clearly what we will do during this Parliament to address the shortfall.

Amber Rudd: I am aware of the good work that my hon. Friend has done this year and the progress he has made, and that Plymouth’s world-leading expertise is at the heart of the south-west marine energy park. Last year, I was delighted to host, with him, a conference in Plymouth to take forward marine energy planning. I can reassure him that we will continue to work with him to ensure that Plymouth stands at the front of any marine energy park.

Amber Rudd: As the hon. Gentlemen may be aware, average domestic gas prices fell by £37 during 2015. Six major suppliers have announced a further cut in their tariffs; two more have announced that this morning. It is a good start, but the Government expect all suppliers to pass on reductions in the costs of supplying energy to consumers. I have met all the major energy suppliers in recent months to make that point clear.

Jim McMahon: Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating the work of our local councils in assisting people to save energy? Oldham Council’s collective buying scheme has attracted 8,700 households to sign up to it, each of which will save about £170. In Nottingham, the first local authority energy company, which employs 30 staff, is hoping to sign up 10,000 households.

Lisa Nandy: Just over a year ago, the Government announced an investigation into whether families should pay less for their energy because of the fall in the wholesale price of gas. The Chancellor told The Telegraph:
	“Falling oil and gas prices should bring cheaper household bills”.
	A spokesman added that the Government were conducting a series of studies of utility companies to examine whether action was needed. The investigation was backed by the Prime Minister, the then Energy and Climate Change Secretary and the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It was reported that Ministers would be watching the energy companies “like a hawk”. What happened to that study, and what action was taken?

Andrea Leadsom: A recent European Court of Justice ruling found that the reduced rate of VAT on certain “energy saving materials” was in breach of EU law. As a result, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recently consulted on changes to the rate of VAT and is considering the responses. If the rate of VAT does change, we will consider the options for how to maintain a suitable rate of return for investors under the feed-in tariff.

Angela Rayner: May I, along with the Minister, wish my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) a happy birthday? I am so pleased that he is still winning. He is fantastic.
	Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), the proposed hike in VAT would raise the typical cost of a 4 kW residential solar PV system by nearly £1,000, even though industry experts advise us to retain the lower tax rate for solar under the recent ECJ judgment. The Government are keeping the lower rate for heat pumps, biomass boilers and combined heat and power units. The same should surely apply to solar PV thermal; otherwise we will have the perverse situation in which electricity generated from fossil fuels is taxed at 5% VAT, while homeowners have to pay 20% VAT for their own renewable energy. Can the Minister not persuade the Chancellor to reverse this tax hike and, if she cannot, will she make commensurate increases?

Andrea Leadsom: I want to be clear with the hon. Lady that this is not the Chancellor’s choice. As I have made very clear, this is an EU Court ruling; it is not our choice. In the event that we have to impose an increase in VAT, we will look at the returns to investors under the feed-in tariff.

Callum McCaig: At Prime Minister’s questions on 27 January, the Prime Minister said about oil and gas:
	“I am determined that we build a bridge to the future for all those involved”—[Official Report, 27 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 260.]
	Following his visit to Aberdeen, it is clear that that bridge will be built on the cheap. Industry needs meaningful support in the forthcoming Budget, so can we have less talk about the broad shoulders of the UK, and will the Secretary of State put her back into delivering the change we need?

Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman is being a little churlish about the significant investment that the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom are putting into the north-east, particularly to ensure that jobs and skills are secured. I am working across Departments, and chairing a ministerial group, to ensure that those skills are preserved, and I will be working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that we have a taskforce to take that forward. I hope he will also welcome the £250 million put into Aberdeen for its city deal, but there is a lot of progress to be made and a lot more to take forward.

Patrick Grady: As Valentine’s day approaches, will the Secretary of State support the climate coalition “Show the love” campaign and encourage all Members to wear the green hearts that we have been sent, which symbolise how so much of what we love, wherever we are in the world, is affected by climate change?

Amber Rudd: That is a very interesting approach, and it is always good to welcome Valentine’s day. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give one of those hearts to the birthday boy who is sitting in front of him.

Jason McCartney: Dozens of my constituents are employed in the solar power industry, and I meet them regularly. May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) in asking the ministerial team to continue to assess and analyse what effect the changes to solar subsidies are having on microbusinesses and small and medium-sized businesses that are engaged in the solar industry?

Peter Aldous: The new Anglia local enterprise partnership’s oil and gas taskforce has developed a package of measures to support businesses and workers at this difficult time. Will the Secretary of State consider a proposal from the LEP for the Government to match the local funding that it is providing?

Andrea Leadsom: We absolutely appreciate that industry, across all technologies, needs clarity on Government policies in future allocation rounds so that it can manage its investment decisions, and we aim to support that. We are currently working with Her Majesty’s Treasury to finalise the budget for future auctions, and we will set out more information as soon as we can.

Diana R. Johnson: The Select Committee has found that scrapping the Government’s support for carbon capture and storage technology puts at risk the UK’s international commitments on tackling climate change and makes it more expensive to do this. We have also lost out on about £250 million-worth of EU investment. Can the Minister just explain to me how this makes sense?

Andrea Leadsom: Our view is that CCS has a potentially important role to play in long-term decarbonisation. We continue to invest in the development of CCS; we are investing more than £130 million to develop the technology through innovation support. My Department is looking at what our new policy is to develop this important technology.

Roger Mullin: Electrical network losses from theft and so-called “copper losses” are estimated by the Department to cost consumers in excess of £3 billion annually. What recent analysis has the Department undertaken on the potential contribution of power line carrier technology to address this issue?

Andrea Leadsom: This area interests me personally a great deal. Obviously, it is a complete disaster if pipeline tapping—in effect, stealing—takes product away from consumers which then has to be paid for. This is a vital area and I am looking at it. I am not familiar with the proposal the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but if he would like to write to me about it, I would be happy to take a look at it.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a chance to explain that the licence is not a licence to frack—that sounds a bit Bond-like; it is simply a licence to be able to consider the seismic opportunity of the shale gas that is potentially underneath. It is absolutely not a guarantee that anything will happen at all. There is then a whole planning process to go through, including environmental assessments, health and safety assessments and so on. And there is a very clear local planning process, which is very well communicated and with which she will be very familiar.

Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman might be aware that the Paris agreement called for temperature increases to be limited to a maximum of 2°, yet the intended nationally determined contributions—the voluntary contributions from each country—only reached 2.7°, so that comes as no surprise. Everyone who signed up to the agreement—let us celebrate the fact that nearly 200 countries did so—knows that there is more work to do. It is not the end of the journey; it is just the start.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Chris Bryant: (Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on Short money and the policy development grant.

John Penrose: rose—

Hon. Members: Where’s the Leader of the House?

Chris Bryant: Does the Minister agree that it
	“cannot be right…for Opposition parties to be under-resourced, particularly when…the Government have increased substantially, from taxpayers’ money, the resources that they receive for their own special advisers”?—[Official Report, 26 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 428-9.]
	Those are not my words; they were the words of Sir George Young, when he was the Conservative shadow Leader of the House, arguing for even more Short money for the Tories when the Labour Government trebled it for them in 1999. In opposition, the Prime Minister said he would cut the number and cost of special advisers, yet in government he has appointed 27 more than ever before and the cost to the taxpayer has gone up by £2.5 million a year. There is a word for that, Mr Speaker, but it is not parliamentary.
	In opposition, the Conservatives banked £46 million a year in Short money, yet in government they want to cut it for the Opposition by 20%. There is a word for that, Mr Speaker, but it is not parliamentary. How can it be right for the Government to cut the policy development grant to political parties by 19%, when they are not cutting the amount of money spent on their own special advisers? Surely history has taught us that an overweening Executive is always a mistake. Surely, if a party in government needs financial support in addition to the civil service, it is in the national interest that all the Opposition parties should be properly resourced as well.
	The Government have briefed journalists that they will publish their proposals on Short money tomorrow—in the recess—and that, basically, is what the Minister just admitted. Surely, above all else, this is a matter for the House. Short money was created by the House, and amendments have to be agreed by the House, so surely the House should hear first. Why, then, has the Leader of the House made absolutely no attempt to meet me or representatives of any other political party for proper consultation? Why did he fail to turn up for three meetings yesterday? Why is he not doing his proper job and standing at the Dispatch Box today? Mr Speaker, what is the word for this behaviour? Is it shabby, tawdry or just downright cynical?

John Penrose: I apologise fulsomely for not being the Leader of the House. I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House is looking forward to his weekly arm wrestle with him, but in the meantime I hope that he will accept having the other policy Minister—I am responsible for policy development grants—responding to his question and treat it as an amuse-bouche for his later work-outs with the Leader of the House.
	To clarify one further point, I did not say we were launching “proposals”; I said we would be launching further “consultations”—and it is extremely important to understand that consultations involve a dialogue. The determined assault of the shadow Leader of the House is rather blunted by the fact that he will have a huge opportunity to contribute, as will others of all parties, as required, as soon as this consultation is launched.
	One important point that the shadow Leader of the House managed to gloss over—I am sure inadvertently—is that Short money, contrary to the impression given by his remarks, has actually risen very substantially over the course of the last five years. It has gone up by more than 50%; it is more than 50% higher than it used to be. If we make no changes over the next few years, it will continue to rise still further. The population—the voters—who have had five or more years of having to tighten their belts to deal with the—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I appreciate that this is a high-octane issue, and it is because I judged it worthy of treatment today that the urgent question was granted. Members must, however, listen to the Minister who is, to be fair, among the most courteous of Ministers. He must be heard—[Interruption.] Order. There will then be a full opportunity for colleagues to question him.

John Penrose: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To finish my point, the country will not understand why politicians should be exempt from having to deal with the effects of the financial deficit that we were bequeathed by the last Labour Government. The reason why we have to tighten our belts as a nation is that whopping financial deficit. It cannot be right for politicians to argue that they should be in some way exempt—a special class—and not have to do their bit. Short money has gone up by 50% so far, and it will continue to rise if we do nothing. I think that the country expects us as politicians to set an example and to do our bit.

John Penrose: I welcome the Select Committee Chairman’s pledge of a further consultation. That will provide further opportunities to air the issues around this matter in addition to—and possibly in parallel with, depending on the timing—the consultation I mentioned in my earlier remarks.

John Penrose: The shadow Leader of the House delights in using the standard format, “There is a word for that.” He has used that rhetorical device on several previous occasions, but one of the words he has not used is “shambles”, which is perhaps what my hon. Friend is suggesting about Labour’s performance on at least one or two issues.
	I can happily confirm that the cost of Spads has started to fall since the last general election, which is tremendously important. I also heartily endorse my hon. Friend’s point that, in order to remain in touch with both the feelings of the House and those of the electorate, Governments need to listen to Back Benchers as well as to others very carefully indeed.

Margaret Beckett: Is the Minister aware that I was fortunate enough to be the Leader of the House who put through the settlement on Short money to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has referred? At the time, we had a massive majority and every opportunity to use office to disadvantage our opponents, had we wished. The Conservative party was politically on its knees, and financially as close to it as it had ever been. We had experienced one of the features of the proposal that is being considered, namely the freezing of the grant after it has been cut. We experienced inflation of 10% to 15% under the triumphant preceding Conservative Government. Consequently, not only did we treble the money and make special provision for the special needs of the Leader of the Opposition, but we inflation-proofed it. That is why the money has gone up for the past five years: it is his party’s own record on inflation that the Minister is criticising.

Douglas Carswell: I am delighted that the Government are cutting Short money; few things this Administration have announced have pleased me more. Does the Minister agree that this is public money and that the public will deeply resent it being spent on politicians to do more politics? Does he agree that the rules on Short money need to reflect the fact that the cost of doing politics—of doing policy, research and communication—have come down? We live in a world where Google is at our fingertips, so we do not need researchers. We also have Twitter and blogs so we do not need a whole department of press officers. Does he agree that the public will resent using public money to pay for Spads and shadow special advisers, who have watched too much of “The West Wing”, to sit in Portcullis House at public expense?

John Penrose: I agree with large parts of what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that the public will look at these contributions from the public purse—which taxpayers fund without choice, unlike other forms of political donation about which people do have a choice—and wonder why the political classes think that they should be exempt, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it is far more possible nowadays to do this work in an efficient fashion and to deliver greater efficiencies. I believe that he has in the past turned down potential allocations of either Short money or the policy development grant to which he was theoretically entitled, and I compliment him on that principled stand.

John Penrose: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and, as he says, he speaks from personal experience. I think that the crucial point we all need to remember—the guiding star—is that at some point whoever is in government will be in opposition, although I hope it will not be for a great deal of time in our case. We must therefore come up with rules that we are all happy to live with, whichever side of the aisle we are on.

Nick Brown: The Government are setting to one side all the conventions for dealing with issues of this kind. There is no precedent for them to proceed in this way. In fact, what they are doing does not amount to anything more than Bullingdon Club bullying of Parliament. They are treating Parliament as if it were a Department of Government, and an unfavoured Department of Government at that. Will the Leader of the House—sorry, I mean the Minister, although it ought to be the Leader of the House—tell us what he has done to defend the interests of Parliament, rather than the narrow political interests of the Conservative Government?

John Penrose: I would gently and respectfully demur from the right hon. Gentleman’s starting point. We have been undertaking some informal discussions between parties, which we are planning to make much more formal in the future, and I think that means that there will be plenty of opportunities for cross-party views to be gathered. There is absolutely no intention to subvert the will of Parliament. In fact, as you know, Mr Speaker, whatever proposals are made will have to be subject to debate and passage through the House when they eventually materialise.

Gisela Stuart: If this is about responding to the deficit and the cuts are therefore justified, will the Minister explain how it is justified that the number of Spads has risen from 79 to 95, at an extra cost of more than £2 million?

John Penrose: I do not know where to start in trying to rebut some of the absurd assumptions in that question, but I think that the short answer to all of them is “No.”

Liz McInnes: These proposals come on the back of the Government’s attack on Labour’s funding via the Trade Union Bill. It is clearly part of a partisan move to hit the Opposition and give the Government an unfair advantage, while leaving their own funding base of big donors untouched. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are now in favour of rigging the rules to suit themselves?

John Penrose: I am terribly sorry to disagree with such a senior and experienced Member, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman and others that the public at large have had several years of belt-tightening. They have had to deal with the effects of the deficit and have all had to contribute to try to close the yawning financial gap that we were bequeathed by the previous Government. They will just not understand—they will judge politicians and the political classes, as they see them, extremely harshly—if we are not willing to do our bit and make this work.

John Penrose: The measures will in due course come to the House for a vote, and rightly so. They will be subject to proper democratic scrutiny in due course, so the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to try to persuade others of his point of view, but I again draw a crucial distinction between the provision of public money, funded by taxpayers, who do not have a choice about whether the money goes to political parties, and voluntary political donations made by whoever it may be—individuals or trade unions. In the end, people should have a choice. That is the crucial distinction between those two sources.

John Penrose: There were an awful lot of negatives in that question, but I think that I get the hon. Gentleman’s drift. I take his point on the concerns about the overall size of the House of Lords, but it is important for us not to forget that it has managed to reduce its total costs. As I mentioned earlier, there are ongoing cross-party discussions on how to address its overall size. I encourage their lordships to continue those discussions and, with any luck, to produce proposals shortly.

Jo Stevens: The Minister has repeatedly spoken this morning of tightening belts, but will he confirm that, when in opposition, the Conservative party took every penny of the £4.8 million Short money it was offered each year? There was no tightening of the belts then.

John Penrose: We are all anxious to crack on with this as soon as we can, and we would like to start the consultation shortly. Given the level of interest that has been made evident during this urgent question, I am sure that we would be criticised further if we were to delay the consultation. I would like to get on with it soon, if we can, and to allow plenty of time for people to respond over a period of weeks. I am sure that the Select Committee’s Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), will understand that timetable and that he will time his Committee’s investigations appropriately.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Mr Speaker, you said earlier that the Minister was one of the most courteous in the House—indeed he is—but he has now been in denial for the best part of half an hour. Does he not accept that the combination of a Trade Union Bill attacking Labour party funds, a boundary review that is likely to favour the Conservative party and a reduction in Short money and policy development money gives the impression outside this place that the Government are acting like the bully in the playground? The damage will be inflicted not on a child but on the integrity of Parliament and on the health of our democracy.

John Penrose: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the boundary review. It is important that we all sign up to the principle that everybody’s vote, right the way across the country, no matter which constituency they might be in, should weigh the same. It cannot be right to have a system in which, in the past, Members of Parliament from some political parties have been elected in constituencies with many fewer people than others. People might justifiably ask why the Labour party, which benefited from that system for a very long time, is so against the notion of having equal votes for equal weight. I commend the new changes and the equalisation of the size of constituencies to all here.

Cat Smith: The Minister is desperately trying, and failing, to justify the 19% cut to the Short money in the context of a Trade Union Bill that takes funds from the Labour party, of stuffing up the House of Lords and of changes to the electoral register and general election boundaries. We he now admit that the so-called one nation party is trying to create a one-party nation?

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister has said several times we all need to tighten our belts, so can he just answer this question: how come the Chancellor of the Exchequer can increase his Spad’s pay by 42%? Just answer the question, please.

Jonathan Reynolds: The number of Government political advisers is up to nearly 100. The number of political advisers on the highest pay grade up 150%. The Prime Minister’s reportable salaries have increased by 51% and the Chancellor’s reportable political salaries have increased by 277%. When the Minister told us, just minutes ago, that the Government were tightening their belt on their political budget, did he deliberately mislead the House?

Business of the House

Chris Grayling: It is a pleasure to follow an urgent question responded to by the Minister responsible.
	The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 22 February—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill. I also expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement, following the European Council meeting.
	Tuesday 23 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Education and Adoption Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Wednesday 24 February—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 25 February—General debate on European affairs.
	Friday 26 February—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 29 February will include:
	Monday 29 February—Estimates (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on the science budget, followed by a debate on end-of-life care. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
	[The details are as follows: First Report from the Science and Technology Committee, The Science Budget, HC 340, and the Government response, HC 729; and Fifth Report from the Health Committee, Session 2014-15, HC 805, and the Government response, Cm 9143; First Report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Follow-up to PHSO Report: Dying without dignity, HC 432; Sixth Report from the Public Administration Committee, Session 2014-15, Investigating clinical incidents in the NHS, HC 886.]
	Tuesday 1 March—Estimates (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the 2015 spending review, followed by a debate on the reform of the police funding formula. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
	[The details are as follows: First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The FCO and the 2015 Spending Review, HC 467, and the Government response, HC 816; and Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Reform of the Police Funding Formula, HC 476.]
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 25 February will be:
	Thursday 25 February—Debate on the seventh report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on litter and fly-tipping in England.

Chris Bryant: Let me pay tribute to Harry Harpham. I know others have done so, but there are few miners left in this House and my constituents in the Rhondda would want to mark his passing with a warm comradely salute. And talking of miners, I would like to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) an 84th happy birthday. He has still got the oomph of a 48-year-old.
	I hope that the announcement made by the Leader of the House got you all excited, Mr Speaker, and that you were all atingle. I am genuinely excited, because if you read between the lines you will have spotted that Monday 22 February is going to be a very special day indeed. It is not just that the Prime Minister is making a statement on the EU Council. Far more importantly, 22 February 2016 will be the day the Government abandon collective responsibility on the EU. Cabinet Ministers will be hurtling down the corridors of power to get to television studios to be the first to go live on air to declare themselves an out-er. Forget the relief of Mafeking; forget the liberation of Paris; forget “Free Willy”; and even forget “Free Nelson Mandela”, because the 22 February 2016 will be known hereafter as the National Liberation of Grayling Day. Buy your bunting now, Mr Speaker.
	Talking of the 22 February, the Leader of the House has also announced, finally, the mystery Second Reading Bill, which will be a Northern Ireland Bill. Will he ensure that the Committee and Report stages of that Bill are all taken on the Floor of the House, so that all Northern Ireland Members can take part in the debate?
	Can the Leader of the House tell us the date of the State Opening of Parliament? We have fixed-term Parliaments now, so can he tell us whether it will even be in May? If it is to be in May, there are four possible Wednesdays. The 4 May is the day before local elections, so that is out. The 25 May is just before the bank holiday and would fall in purdah for the EU referendum, so will it be the 11 or the 18 May? Come on! Or are the Government intending to keep this Session going indefinitely, way beyond the European referendum, into the autumn and into next year? If so, will he give us some more dates for private Members’ Bills as we have no more Fridays allocated?
	We have been saying for a while that the Trade Union Bill is partisan, petty-minded and vindictive, but now we know that the Government think so, too. After all, the Minister for Skills, who is the Minister in charge, has written to the Leader of the House, saying that large chunks of the Bill need redrafting—would you believe it?—because they are simply not “rational”—his word. He is seeking clearance on possible concessions to ease handling in the House of Lords.
	Apparently, one concession under consideration relates to check-off—obviously, I do not mean the playwright—whereby most trade union members have their union subscriptions deducted from their pay and sent to their union by their employer. The Government want to ban check-off, but the leaked letter makes it absolutely clear that it would be illegal to do so in Scotland and Wales due to devolution, but how on earth can it be right for the Government to ban check-off at all? The Government’s own website makes it absolutely clear that this arrangement is entirely voluntary. This is what it says:
	“There is no legal requirement for your employer to do this”.
	For petty, partisan advantage a Conservative Government are intending to outlaw a perfectly sensible private contract between employer and employee. How does that fit with Edmund Burke and Adam Smith?
	When the Bill was in this House, the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) quite wisely tabled a perfectly sensible amendment to allow check-off to continue. Why does the Leader of the House not stand up today and tell us that that is one of the Government’s concessions?
	Also speaking of the Trade Union Bill, Lord Adebowale, a Cross Bencher, said:
	“If ever there was evidence that the intention of the Bill is not entirely honourable, it is in the refusal to allow electronic workplace ballots”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 63.]
	Would it not be utterly hypocritical to campaign for the Tory candidate for Mayor of London, who was elected by Tory Members in an e-ballot, while refusing to allow trade unions to e-ballot their own members?
	Will the Government finally back down on their preposterous 50% minimum threshold proposal for strike action? How many MPs would be sitting in this House if we had to get 50% of the electorate? Can the Leader of the House confirm that not a single Conservative MP achieved that? He got just 43%, so by his own logic he should not be here, but, frankly, by his own attendance record at the moment, he is not here anyway.
	Going back to that letter that was sent to the Leader of the House, what really fascinates me is that it was leaked not to TheDaily Telegraph, The Times, or Daily Mail but to the Socialist Worker. What is going on? Is there something the Leader of the House wants to tell us?
	Talking of two-facedness, can we have a debate on pork barrel politics? After all, the Government were so terrified of losing their local government allocation yesterday that they bought off their own Members with a special slush fund of £300 million. How on earth did they decide how that money was to be allocated? Did Tory Ministers just sit down with their address books and shout out the postcodes of their friends and relatives and people who went to the black and white ball, while the Local Government Minister notched up £24 million for Surrey, £19 million for hard-up Hampshire, £16 million for Hertfordshire and £9 million each for Buckinghamshire and for the Prime Minister’s backyard in Oxfordshire? Why on earth are the five poorest councils in the land, with the toughest circumstances and with multiple levels of deprivation, getting not a single penny of extra money, while the richest are being showered with £5.3 million? It is thoroughly disreputable—it is Robin Hood in reverse.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is clearly incapable of keeping his remarks to five minutes.
	May I start by echoing the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Harry Harpham? It is always a tragedy when any Member of this House passes away, particularly after such a short time in this House. I am sure I express the sentiments of all hon. Members in sending good wishes to his family.
	I, too, extend birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). I suspect he will not join me, although I hope that the shadow Leader of the House, as a great champion of equalities issues, will in celebrating the 41st anniversary of the first woman party leader in this country—a woman who became one of our greatest Prime Ministers, a great leader of this country. I am sure he would want to celebrate her achievement in demonstrating that the Conservative party is the one that creates opportunity for all.
	As we heard yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, there is no doubt about the winner of this week’s quote of the week award:
	“Oh dear oh dear omg oh dear oh dear need to go rest in a darkened room”.
	The surprising thing is that that tweet from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) was not about her party leader’s stunning success in launching his local election campaign 2016 in Nottingham, a city which this year has no local elections. Of course her comments came in the wake of her party being briefed on progress in its defence review. The party was told that Trident would soon be as obsolete as Spitfire because of a new generation of demon underwater drones that no defence specialist has ever heard of. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, indeed. This is the madness that has now engulfed the Labour party. And the hon. Gentleman still thinks he has any credibility sitting in the shadow Cabinet.
	I am pleased to have been able to confirm that the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill will receive its Second Reading on 22 February. I place on record my thanks and congratulations to all those who have been involved in the negotiations leading to the publication of the Bill. I am also grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place between the Government and Opposition parties about the Bill.
	The only rather surprising thing is that when the shadow Leader of the House started jumping up and down last week about the Second Reading on 22 February, no one on his side had apparently bothered to tell him that all those discussions were happening. But we know that the hon. Gentleman is not much in the loop with his party these days anyway. At these sessions he asks for debate after debate, but when I give him and his colleagues an Opposition day and they pick their subject, it is virtually never on the subjects he says are important. He has asked for various things this morning. I have given him a new Opposition day, but I bet his party still does not listen to him.
	It has not been a great week for the hon. Gentleman. He managed to turn an important debate about domestic violence into one about whether Welsh rugby fans should sing the Tom Jones song “Delilah” at the start of matches. He ended up in a spat with the songwriter, who said that the hon. Gentleman did not even know what the song was about. He may love the sound of his own voice, but right now it is not unusual to find that no one is listening to him.

Pete Wishart: May I too thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the week after next? We on the Scottish National party Benches also express our condolences to the family of Harry Harpham. Obviously, we also wish the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) a happy 84th birthday. We might have had a bit of a difference with him initially about sharing the Front Bench, but we could not have a finer Member of Parliament to share it with.
	We may be approaching Valentine’s day, but there is not much love coming from the Leader of the House. This morning, we saw the report on English votes for English laws from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—and what a report it was. I hope we will start to see the death knell of the absurdity that is EVEL. It is over-complicated and ad hoc, it lacks transparency, and it is incompatible with Barnett. Those are not the words of the Scottish National party, although I would be proud of every one of them; they are the words of a Select Committee of this House with a Conservative Chair and a Conservative majority. Can we not just conclude that this dog’s breakfast is not fit for purpose? It commands no support beyond the ranks of the Conservative party, and it is deeply divisive. Let us go back to equality—equality of membership of this House—and not have division by nationality or geographic location of constituency. We have tried that. It has failed. Let us now move on.
	One striking anomaly in this mess is that we still have to contend with Barnett consequentials. We all remember what the Leader of the House said: this is nothing to do with legislation, and there is no such thing as Barnett consequentials—a bit like the Easter bunny, I suppose. That is what he said: Barnett consequentials would be found in the consolidated spending Departments’ estimates process, but there is no difference in the way we are debating estimates—it is business as usual. Will he tell us, then, how we are supposed to examine the Barnett consequentials when the Speaker is invited to disregard it in English-only certification, and we cannot find it in anything to do with the estimates? Will he tell us where we can have these debates, and if necessary Divisions, on Barnett consequentials, because we cannot do that at all just now?
	Everybody is working extremely hard to get a deal on the fiscal framework, and the Leader of the House will know of and appreciate their efforts. I hope the Scottish Affairs Committee report will help to find a solution to these difficult and fragile conversations. However, there does seem to be a real distance to go in achieving a coming together of minds on the “no detriment” principle. Will the Leader of the House tell us what happens if no agreement is reached? What would happen to the Scotland Bill if the two Governments reached no agreement on the fiscal framework? Can he categorically rule out this Government imposing a deal and a solution on the Scottish Parliament?
	Last week, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—I am glad he is in his place—asked the Leader of the House when we could expect the Trident maingate decision, and we got the usual response from the Leader of the House that it would be sometime. I really hope that he—I hope he will rule this out—is not using the chaos and crisis in the Labour party on this issue to play games on something so important. I hope he will bring this critical decision to the House, regardless of the mess the Labour party is in, so that the House can properly debate it and vote on it.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman was right to echo the birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). We do look back nostalgically to last summer —to those mornings when the Scottish nationalists and the more Union-focused members of the Labour party rushed for the same seats. They then reached a peace agreement and an accommodation, and it seems as though happiness has reigned on those Benches ever since.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked about English votes. I have to say that the English votes process has bedded down pretty well in this House. I do not accept what he says about the changes we have put in place: they were set out in detail in the Conservative manifesto, and they are the right thing to do. At the moment, it is still the case that the hon. Gentleman’s responsibilities are very different from mine. I have a duty to represent my constituents on issues such as education and health; in his constituency, it is a Member of the Scottish Parliament who deals with those issues. It is therefore only right and proper that we have a settlement that reflects the reality of devolution and gives the English a fair say in what happens as well.
	On the estimates debate, I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as an influential Member of this House. However, the topics for the estimates debate are picked by the Liaison Committee. As a Committee Chair himself, he is a member of the Liaison Committee, so he is in a most effective position to secure the debates on estimates that he wants. Knowing how influential he can be, I cannot understand what went wrong. Why did he not get the debates he wanted? He needs to go back to his colleagues on the Committee and try to do better next time.
	On the fiscal framework, the hon. Gentleman asked what happens if it does not work. Well, I am afraid that I am not going to accept the concept of failure. We will reach an agreement. It is in his party’s interest to do the right thing for Scotland and in our party’s interest to do the right thing for Scotland, and I am sure that we will.
	On Trident, we will bring forward the motion for debate in due course. In the meantime, I think we are all enjoying the spectacle of the utter chaos on the Labour Benches. Surely not even those Front Benchers who are doggedly determined to hold on to their jobs could avoid the reality that they are now a total shambles.

Chris Grayling: I think we would all regard the current situation in Ethiopia as enormously distressing. I can assure my hon. Friend that discussions about this have already taken place within Government. The Government are already providing more than £100 million of aid to address this challenge, and we will continue to work with international agencies to do everything we can to alleviate what is potentially a dreadful humanitarian crisis.

Dawn Butler: Will the Leader of the House make time to debate the Government’s manifesto commitment to install smart meters in every household by 2020? This important move will help to end the pre-pay rip-off if the customers affected are prioritised in the smart meter roll-out.

Chris Grayling: This is a focus of the Government, as are broader changes to try to ensure that consumers get a better deal. We will make more information about this available in the months ahead. I shall make sure that the hon. Lady’s concerns are passed to the relevant Minister. She may also want to bring the matter to the Floor of the House through the Backbench Business Committee or an Adjournment debate.

Chris Grayling: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the role he has taken up in the Council of Europe on behalf of this country. This issue is enormously important. Of course, as I said earlier, we will be making time available for a debate. He is right that the debate that takes place both in this House and in this country needs to be a measured one that is based on facts and information. With all the talk about “project fear” and innuendo, we have to table information and make arguments in a measured way so that the public can make an informed decision before they vote in the summer, or whenever it is.

Ian Mearns: The Backbench Business Committee was aware that there was a possibility of getting some time on Tuesday 23 February, and we have a number of debates that we would possibly like to table for then. However, it is now only two sitting days away and we have not yet had an undertaking that there will be guaranteed time for such debates. We have an application for a debate on the serious issue of gangs and serious youth violence, but we would be reticent to table it unless we were guaranteed that it would get a good airing. We also have two debates that are time-sensitive for which we would like notification on tabling: one on Welsh affairs, which we would like to have as close as possible to St David’s day on 1 March; and one on International Women’s Day, which we would like to have as close as possible to 8 March. May I have some undertakings from the Leader of the House on this?

Andrew Murrison: Today, the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill was published, and the Intelligence and Security Committee published a report on the Bill earlier this week. There is a lot of public interest in the matter. Will the Leader of the House ensure that sufficient parliamentary time is allotted to consideration of what the Prime Minister has described as the “most important” Bill of this Parliament, so that the matter can be properly explored and debated?

Chris Grayling: I express the Government’s thanks to all who have been involved in scrutinising the draft Bill. My hon. Friend is right to say that the House must have appropriate time to scrutinise and debate the legislation. It will come before the House shortly, and we want to make sure that people have the opportunity to deal fully with the issues that it contains.

Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister makes great play of the fact that as part of his European negotiations, he will strengthen the role of national Parliaments. Is the Leader of the House not therefore a little bit embarrassed about the fact that the debate on European affairs will be after the Prime Minister has negotiated, and that the Government have not given Parliament a proper day’s debate to consider what the Prime Minister should negotiate on?

Jim Shannon: Mr Islam al-Beheiry is an Egyptian television presenter and researcher who hosted a religious talk show. In June 2015, he was convicted of contempt of religion under article 98 of the penal code and sentenced to five years in prison with hard labour. On 2 February 2016, a court upheld his sentence. The TV show that he hosted was a way to debate Islamic interpretations, and that comes under freedom of religion or belief. Egypt has signed the international covenant on civil and political rights, so by upholding al-Beheiry’s sentence the country has violated its legal obligations to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement on the diplomatic steps that the Government have taken to call for the release of Islam al-Beheiry?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will make sure that his concerns are drawn to the Foreign Secretary’s attention. The Foreign Secretary will be before the House on Tuesday week, when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put that question to him.

Antoinette Sandbach: Few things upset my constituents more than the potential impact of new housing development on their doctors’ surgeries, schools and local infrastructure. The Minister for Housing and Planning emphasised during proceedings on the Housing and Planning Bill the importance of local councils giving due consideration to impacts on infrastructure. Will the Leader of the House secure a written statement from the Housing and Planning Minister to give local councils proper guidance on how to apply that principle?

Ann Clwyd: In the ’70s and ’80s, at least eight young boys in my constituency were sexually abused in homes in north Wales. Lady Macur’s report has been on Ministers’ desks for at least the last two months. We understand that some of it may be redacted. If the report is truly independent, why are the Government sitting on it?

Chris Grayling: I do not know the reasons for the timing of the report, which I was instrumental in setting up when I was Justice Secretary. I pay tribute to Lady Justice Macur, who is a distinguished judge and who will have done the job as effectively as possible. I will make sure that the right hon. Lady’s concern is passed to my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. Clearly, we want to do right by the victims.

Chris Grayling: I am sure everyone in the House today will commend my hon. Friend for his determination to pursue the cause of ensuring the protection of a noble species. I congratulate him on what he is doing. The hedgehog is an integral part of our country’s wildlife. [Interruption.] Despite what the shadow Leader of the House says, it is a very noble species and a very important part of our national heritage. I commend my hon. Friend for the work he is doing. I have no doubt whatever that when he comes forward with a successful petition, as I am sure he will, the Petitions Committee will make time available for such a debate.

Barry Gardiner: My constituent Mr K has received two fixed penalty notices—one for exiting a car park from the wrong exit, and another for parking in a business permit bay—and, as a result, he was told that he had failed the good character requirement for British citizenship. May we have a debate on proportionate decision making in the Home Office?

Chris Grayling: It is difficult for me to comment on the individual case. Clearly, we want people who apply for citizenship to be of good character. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that if the system has gone badly wrong, somebody should do something about it. The Home Secretary will be in the Chamber for oral questions on Monday week and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts that question to Ministers, who I am sure will want to take it up on his behalf.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am sure that this investment was a little bit helped on its way by the effective way in which he represents the town of Kettering. He highlights the very real new investments that are taking place in the national health service—new treatments, new equipment—all as a result of the extra funding we are putting into the national health service. The party now in opposition did not want to do that, and the Labour party in power in Wales is not doing it.

Chris Grayling: I know that this is a matter of great importance to the Education Secretary and that she is working on it at the moment. My hon. Friend makes an important point, because ensuring a smooth transition from school or college into work is an essential part of securing this country’s economic future. One thing we are trying to do to strengthen that is to increase the number of apprenticeships and to make it absolutely clear to young people that the apprenticeship route can be a very powerful and successful way into work.

Paula Sherriff: May we have Government time for a debate on the consultation by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on tips and gratuities? The consultation closed at the start of last November, but the Minister for Skills confirmed in a written answer this morning that no Government response is imminent. Just this week, Unite the union has exposed another scandalous practice in which the Melia Hotel International chain appears to take a 15% cut from tips and uses it to top up senior managers’ pay, which it describes as standard industry practice. Will the Leader of the House join me in saying that this is totally unacceptable, and urge his colleagues to move from consultation to action?

Vicky Foxcroft: The year of the monkey started this week and I hear that this brings out a mischievous streak in people. I am not sure if you are aware, Mr Speaker, but you are a rabbit. Some of your traits are being gentle, elegant, alert, quick and kind. The Leader of the House is a tiger, which is known for being over-indulged, but also for its bravery. Well, one has to be brave to go up against someone as diligent, dependable and full of strength and determination as our ox, the shadow Leader of the House. Members may or may not know that the Chancellor is a pig—quite literally, he is a pig! I will leave it there and simply ask the Leader of the House to join me in wishing my Chinese community, whose celebrations I will join this weekend, a happy Chinese new year.

Patrick Grady: Yesterday from the Vote Office I collected the central Government supply estimates, 2015-16 edition, which, despite running to 700 pages, describes itself as a “booklet”. Can the Leader of the House tell me what opportunities I will have, as a Member from Scotland, to debate and amend the specifics in this booklet if I feel that they may have Barnett consequentials through EVEL legislation, and what the deadline is for tabling those amendments?

Madeleine Moon: Every day, we see tragic pictures of people fleeing the horror of Aleppo. We see the anxiety building as they are refused entry into Turkey and there is the fear that they will make their way across the Mediterranean into Europe. May we have a whole day’s debate on the international crisis facing the world that is flooding out of Syria and on how we can take responsibility for that crisis, which has largely been created by the Assad regime and Russia?

Gavin Newlands: During last week’s successful debate on the role of men in preventing violence against women, and the urgent question on the Return of Kings, the Minister answered questions on the delay in ratifying the Istanbul convention on women’s rights, and indicated that the Government are keen to do so but need the primary legislation. Is the Leader of the House aware of any plans to bring legislation on that matter before the House before the summer recess? If not, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on why that is?

Chris Grayling: The Government will certainly consider that issue. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot make any announcements at this stage about the contents of the upcoming Queen’s Speech, which will put forward a programme of legislation that is designed to address the issues faced by this country, but I will ensure that Ministers are aware of his concern.

Liz McInnes: The British Retail Consortium’s crime report for 2014-15 found that there were 41 incidents of violence and abuse per 1,000 retail employees, which is up from 32 incidents per 1,000 employees in the previous year. Three million people work in our retail industry, and I do not need to say how important their work is to our local and national economies. May we have an urgent debate about that unacceptable level of violence against our retail workers?

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government’s policy is not to put all eggs in one basket. We have probably done more than any previous Government in pursuing renewable energy in this country, be it wind, solar or tidal, but we believe that we need a mix of generation for the future, and that will include nuclear.

Chris Stephens: I wish to make a similar point to one made by the shadow Leader of the House. Do the Government intend to make a statement or hold a debate in Government time on the contradictory statements they are making on their anti-Trade Union Bill? I am of course referring to the aforementioned letter dated 26 January from the Minister for Skills, which is in stark contrast to the oral answer he provided to me on 2 February, when he said there would be no concessions on facility time and check-off. In the absence of any statement, will the Leader of the House tell us what his answer was to that letter of 26 January? Or is that also the exclusive property of the Socialist Worker newspaper?

Chris Grayling: I checked on this and the hon. Lady has perhaps misinterpreted the wording of the Prime Minister’s response, but I have tried to ensure that she receives a ministerial meeting. If that has not come through yet, I will follow it up today.

Chris Grayling: The Government’s approach has been to try get finance to those who need it quickly and not to worry about complicated bidding processes, so that we ensure we provide help immediately to those who need it. If people look at the amounts of money that have been provided to the areas affected, they will see that we have done the right thing.

Chris Grayling: There is no doubt that mining communities played a huge role in this country. They provided the energy that kept this country and its economy going for decades. I am glad that in today’s world we can provide energy sources from a variety of different routes, which means that we do not perhaps have to subject those who did such sterling work in the past to those conditions today.

Junior Doctors Contracts

Jeremy Hunt: Nearly three years ago to the day, the Government first sat down with the British Medical Association to negotiate a new contract for junior doctors. Both sides agreed that the current arrangements, drawn up in 1999, were not fit for purpose and that the system of paying for unsocial hours in particular was unfair. Under the existing contract, doctors can receive the same pay for working quite different amounts of unsocial hours; doctors not working nights can be paid the same as those who do; and if one doctor works just one hour over the maximum shift length, it can trigger a 66% pay rise for all doctors on that rota.
	Despite the patent unfairness of the contract, progress in reforming it has been slow, with the BMA walking away from discussions without notice before the general election. Following the election, which the Government won with a clear manifesto commitment to a seven-day NHS, the BMA junior doctors committee refused point blank to discuss reforms, instead choosing to ballot for industrial action. Talks finally started—under the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service process—in November, but since then we have had two damaging strikes, which have resulted in about 6,000 operations being cancelled.
	In January, I asked Sir David Dalton, chief executive of Salford Royal, to lead the negotiating team for the Government. Under his outstanding leadership, for which the whole House will be immensely grateful, progress has been made on almost 100 different points of discussion, with agreement secured with the BMA on approximately 90% of them. Sadly, despite this progress and willingness from the Government to be flexible on the crucial issue of Saturday pay, Sir David wrote to me yesterday advising that a negotiated solution was not realistically possible. Along with other senior NHS leaders and supported by NHS Employers, NHS England, NHS Improvement, the NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, Sir David has asked me to end the uncertainty for the service by proceeding with the introduction of a new contract that he and his colleagues consider both safer for patients and fair and reasonable for junior doctors. I have therefore today decided to do that.
	Tired doctors risk patient safety, so in the new contract the maximum number of hours that can be worked in one week will be reduced from 91 to 72; the maximum number of consecutive nights doctors can be asked to work will be reduced from seven to four; the maximum number of consecutive long days will be reduced from seven to five; and no doctor will ever be rostered consecutive weekends. Sir David believes that these changes will bring substantial improvements to both patient safety and doctor wellbeing. We will also introduce a new guardian role within every trust. These guardians will have the authority to impose fines for breaches to agreed working hours based on excess hours worked. These fines will be invested in educational resources and facilities for trainees.
	The new contract will give additional pay to those working Saturday evenings from 5 pm, nights from 9 pm to 7 am and all day on Sunday, and plain time hours will now be extended from 7 am to 5 pm on Saturdays. However, I said that the Government were willing to be flexible on Saturday premium pay, and we have been: those working one in four or more Saturdays will receive a pay premium of 30%. That is higher on average than that available to nurses, midwives, paramedics and most other clinical staff, and also higher than that available to fire officers, police officers and those in many other walks of life.
	None the less, the changes represent a reduction compared with current rates, but that is necessary to ensure that hospitals can afford additional weekend rostering, and because we do not want take-home pay to go down for junior doctors, after updated modelling, I can tell the House that these changes will allow an increase in basic salary not of 11%, as previously thought, but of 13.5%. Three quarters of doctors will see a take-home pay rise, and no trainee working within contracted hours will have their pay cut.
	Our strong preference was always for a negotiated solution. Our door remained open for three years, and we demonstrated time and again our willingness to negotiate with the BMA on the concerns it raised. However, the definition of negotiation is a discussion where both sides demonstrate flexibility and compromise on their original objectives. The BMA ultimately proved unwilling to do this.
	In such a situation, any Government must do what is right for both patients and doctors. We have now had eight independent studies in the last five years identifying higher mortality rates at weekends as a key challenge to be addressed. Six of these say staffing levels are a factor that needs to be investigated. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh describes the status quo as
	“an avoidable weekend effect which if addressed could save lives”,
	and has set out the 10 clinical standards necessary to remedy this. Today, we are taking one important step necessary to make this possible.
	While I understand that this process has generated considerable dismay amongst junior doctors, I believe that the new contract we are introducing, shaped by Sir David Dalton, and with over 90% of the measures agreed by the BMA through negotiation, is one that in time can command the confidence of both the workforce and their employers. I do believe, however, that the process of negotiation has uncovered some wider and more deep-seated issues relating to junior doctors’ morale, wellbeing and quality of life that need to be addressed.
	These issues include inflexibility around leave; lack of notice about placements that can be a long way from home; separation from spouses and families; and sometimes inadequate support from employers, professional bodies and senior clinicians. I have therefore asked Professor Dame Sue Bailey, president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, alongside other senior clinicians, to lead a review into measures outside the contract that can be taken to improve the morale of the junior doctor workforce. Further details of this review will be set out soon.
	No Government or Health Secretary could responsibly ignore the evidence that hospital mortality rates are higher at the weekend or the overwhelming consensus that the standard of weekend services is too low, with insufficient senior clinical decision makers. The lessons of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay and Basildon in the last decade are that patients suffer when Governments drag their feet on high hospital mortality rates, and this Government are determined that our NHS should offer the safest, highest-quality care in the world.
	We have committed an extra £10 billion to the NHS this Parliament, but with that extra funding must come reform to deliver safer services across all seven days. This is not just about changing doctors contracts. We also need better weekend support services such as physiotherapy, pharmacy and diagnostic scans; better seven-day social care services to facilitate weekend discharging; and better primary care access to help tackle avoidable weekend admissions. Today, we are taking a decisive step forward to help deliver our manifesto commitment, and I commend this statement to the House.

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It would have been good to have previewed this exchange during the urgent question on Monday, but we all know that the Secretary of State could not be bothered to turn up. You might also think, Mr Speaker, that the Health Secretary would do me the courtesy of responding to the two letters I have sent to him in the last week, but you would be wrong. So much for a seven-day health service! A five-day-a-week Health Secretary would be nice.
	This whole dispute could have been handled so differently. The Health Secretary’s failure to listen to junior doctors, his deeply dubious misrepresentation of research about care at weekends and his desire to make these contract negotiations into a symbolic fight for delivery of seven-day services has led to a situation that has been unprecedented in my lifetime. Everyone, including the BMA, agrees with the need to reform the current contract, but hardly anyone thinks the need to do that is so urgent that it justifies imposition, and all the chaos that will bring.
	The Health Secretary said NHS leaders had asked him to “end the uncertainty”, but can he confirm that that means they support “imposing” a new contract? One hospital chief executive, who the Secretary of State claims is supporting him, tweeted this morning:
	“I have supported the view that the offer made is reasonable…I have not supported contract imposition”.
	For the purpose of clarity, can the Secretary of State say categorically that all the NHS leaders whom he mentioned fully support his actions? Can he not see that imposing a new contract that does not enjoy the confidence of junior doctors will destroy morale, which is already at rock bottom?Does he not realise that this decision could lead to a protracted period of industrial action that would be distressing for everyone—patients, doctors, and everyone else who works in or depends on the NHS? [Interruption.]

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has made a number of incorrect statements with which I shall deal with later, but what the country will notice about her response is more straightforward. When we have a seven-day NHS, in a few years’ time, people will say that it was obviously necessary and the right thing to do. They will remember that it was not easy to get there, and they will also remember—sadly—the big call that she made today for short-term political advantage to be placed ahead of the long-term interests of patients.
	Previous reforming Labour Governments might have done what we are doing today. Let me say to the hon. Lady that she has vulnerable constituents—we all have vulnerable constituents—who need a true seven-day NHS, and those are precisely the people that the NHS should be there for. Sorting this out should not be a party issue; it should be something that unites the whole House, and she will come to regret the line that she has taken today.
	Let me address some of the hon. Lady’s particular points. She has said today and on other occasions that this has been badly handled. If she wants to know who has handled contract negotiations badly, it was the party that gave consultants the right to opt out from weekend work in 2003 and that gave GPs the right to opt out of out-of-hours care in 2004. Is it difficult to sort out those problems? Yes. Are we going to be lectured by the people who caused them? No, we are not.
	The hon. Lady also questioned whether there was support for imposition. Let me just read her exactly what the letter that I got from Sir David Dalton says. He states that, on the basis of the stalemate,
	“I therefore advise the government to do whatever it deems necessary to end uncertainty for the service and to make sure that a new contract is in place which is as close as possible to the final position put forward to the BMA yesterday.”
	And what does Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, say?
	“Under these highly regrettable and entirely avoidable circumstances, hospitals are rightly calling for an end to the uncertainty, and the implementation of the compromise package the Dalton team are recommending.”
	The hon. Lady talked about the impact on morale. Perhaps she would like to look at the hospitals that have implemented seven-day care, including Salford Royal, Northumbria and one or two others. They have some of the highest morale in the NHS, because morale for doctors is higher when they are giving better care for patients. She also says that we should not impose the contract, but what she is actually saying is that if the BMA refuses point blank to negotiate on seven-day care, we should give up looking after and doing the right thing for vulnerable patients. What an extraordinary thing for a Labour shadow Health Secretary to say. She also said that we were conflating the junior doctors contract with seven-day working. Well, let us look at what the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges said in 2012. It said:
	“The weekend effect is very likely attributable to deficiencies in care processes linked to the absence of skilled and empowered senior staff”.
	Most medical royal colleges say that junior doctors with experience qualify as senior staff.
	The NHS has made great strides in improving the quality of care. Since I have been Health Secretary, avoidable harm in hospitals has nearly halved, nearly 20% of acute hospitals have been put into a new special measures regime—and we are turning them round—and record numbers of members of the public say that their care is safe and that they are treated with dignity and respect. The seven-day NHS is not just a manifesto commitment; we are doing this because we are willing to fight to make the NHS the safest, highest quality healthcare system in the world. Today we have seen that the Labour party is not prepared to have that fight. Does not this prove to the country that it is the Conservatives who are now the true party of the NHS?

Kenneth Clarke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking this clear and correct decision, because it is quite obvious that after three years, the BMA was prepared to let the whole thing drag on with talks and days of action until he either abandoned the seven-day service or gave the junior doctors an enormous pay settlement in order to buy their agreement to do it. In future discussions, will he keep concentrating, as he has, on the essential public interest, which is to meet the rising and remorseless demand on the service resulting from an ageing population and clinical advance? Will he also use the extra resources that the NHS is getting at the moment to deliver a better service to patients and not allow it to be taken away, as so often happened in the past—including a little more than 10 years ago in 2003—by very large pay claims by the various staff unions, as that would lessen his ability to give us the modern NHS that he is talking about?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. and learned Friend speaks with great wisdom and also great experience. Many Members will remember how, when he was Health Secretary, the BMA put posters of him up all over the country saying “What do you call a man who ignores medical advice?”, and there he was, smoking his cigar. I am sure that there have been Labour Health Secretaries who have had similar treatment. He makes an important point, however. Under the new Labour Administration of Tony Blair, huge amounts of extra resources were put into the NHS but, unfortunately, because of the impact of contract changes in 1999, 2003 and 2004, weekend care actually became less effective, not more effective. Now, thanks to the tough decisions we have taken on public spending and turning the economy around, we have been able to give the NHS a funding settlement next year that is the sixth biggest in its entire nearly 70-year history. We are absolutely determined that, if we are putting that extra money into the NHS, it should come with reform that leads to better care for patients. That is the Conservative way, and we will not be deflected from it.

Philippa Whitford: I should like to pick the Secretary of State up on some aspects of his statement. On Monday, I challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) to step away from the term “weekend deaths”. The Freemantle paper does not show that; it shows increased 30-day mortality in people admitted at the weekend, and there is actually a lower mortality rate at weekends. The junior Minister said that the Secretary of State was really careful, but he has made that suggestion twice in his statement today, and I think that that is very misleading.
	What should have come from the Freemantle paper and others is an attempt to understand why these things happen. The only study that gives a clear answer and backs up the Francis report is the Bray paper on 103 stroke units, which showed that the single most important factor was the ratio of registered nurses. We should know what the problem is before we try to fix it. The one group of staff that is there, along with the nurses, is the junior doctors. They are not the barrier to achieving the 10 standards.
	I welcome the progress that has been made since last November. In a debate in this Chamber in October, the Secretary of State seemed relatively unwilling to go to ACAS, but progress has been made since the negotiations started, and particularly since Sir David Dalton became involved in the past month. I therefore found it incredible to see on the BBC this morning that, having achieved 90% agreement and following a tweet at 4 minutes past 8 saying that we should now get both sides back to the table, the Secretary of State was going to impose the contract.
	The problem with the recognition of unsocial hours might increase the difficulty that we already have in recruiting people to the acute specialties: A&E, maternity and acute medicine. They are already struggling, and this might well make things worse. I also still have concerns about the role of the guardian. The problem is that a junior doctor at the bottom of a hierarchy will have to go and complain, and we can imagine how difficult that might be in a hierarchical system and how easily that doctor could be labelled a troublemaker. So there are still things to be dealt with. I welcome the progress that has been made in the last month, but this is absolutely not the time to pour petrol on the fire and then throw in the towel.

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome the tone of the hon. Lady’s comments. I do not agree with everything that she has said, and I shall explain why, but they were immensely more constructive than the comments that we have heard from other Opposition spokesmen. She is right to say that the studies talk about mortality rates for people admitted at weekends. There have been eight studies in the past five years, or 15 since 2010 if we include international studies. She is right to say that we need to look at why we have these problems.
	The clinical standards state that when someone is admitted, they should be seen by a senior decision-maker within 14 hours of admission. They will be seen by a doctor before then, but they should be seen by someone senior within 14 hours. The standards also state that vulnerable people should be checked twice a day by a senior doctor. Now, across the seven days of the week, the first of those standards is being met in only one in eight of our hospitals and the second in only one in 20. That is why it is important that junior doctors should be part of the group of people who constitute those senior decision-makers—consultants are also part of it—and that is why contract reform is essential.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that this is also about nurse presence, and the terms that we are offering today for junior doctors are better on average than those for the nurses working in the very same hospitals, and better than those for the midwives and the paramedics. That is why Sir David Dalton and many others say that this is a fair and reasonable offer.
	With respect to A&E recruitment, the impact of the contract change we are proposing is that people who regularly work nights and weekends will actually see their pay go up, relatively, compared to the current contract. These are the people who are delivering a seven-day NHS and we must support them every step of the way.

Sarah Wollaston: I know colleagues across the House will want to join me in thanking junior doctors for the valuable work they do for patients across the NHS. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope that they will look very carefully at the improvements in the offer, with a 13.5% increase in the basic rate and the very important safeguard that will discourage over-rostering at weekends by giving them premium rates if they have to work more than, or including, one in four weekends. I hope the BMA will also recognise and welcome the very important appointment of Professor Dame Sue Bailey to lead an inquiry into all the other aspects that lead to discontent with junior doctors. I wonder if the Secretary of State agrees that what we now need is to move forward in a positive spirit that brings this dispute to an end, takes the temperature down and recognises that we all want the same thing: safety for patients.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her very constructive comments. She is right. A 13.5% increase in basic pay is very significant, because, unlike overtime and premium pay, it is pensionable. It will help when applying for a mortgage and will mean more money on maternity leave. I think it will be much better for junior doctors.
	The review that Dame Sue Bailey is doing, which was much-derided by the Opposition when I mentioned it in my statement, is actually very significant. One of the things that has gone wrong in training is that since the implementation of the European working time directive, we have moved away from the old “firm” system, which would mean that junior doctors were assigned to a consultant, who they would see on a regular basis and who was able to coach them on a continuous basis over weeks and months. That has been lost and many people think that that has led to much lower morale. We want to see what we can do to sort that out.
	Finally, I want to echo what my hon. Friend said about going forward in a positive and constructive spirit. When, as a Government, we took the decision to proceed with implementing new contracts, we had the choice of many different routes, because, essentially, we can decide exactly what to choose. We have chosen to implement the contract recommended by NHS chief executives as being fair and reasonable. That is different from our original position. We have moved a considerable distance on most of the major issues, but it is what the NHS thinks is a fair and reasonable contract and we need to move forward.

Jeremy Hunt: We now have 10,600 more doctors working in the NHS than we did five years ago and we are investing record amounts going forward. There has been a lot of smoke and mirrors about what is actually in our contract proposals. I hope all trainees and medical students will look at the proposals and see that independent people have looked over them and believe they are fair and reasonable—actually better—for junior doctors, and that we will continue to be able to recruit more doctors into the NHS.

Edward Leigh: As one, like myself, gets a bit older—some might say clapped out—one relies on the NHS more and more. People like me—I have just had an operation and might have another coming up—get worried about strikes. I hope the Secretary of State will try, from now on, to build the morale of junior doctors. Surely the NHS is not for the Conservative party, the Labour party, doctors or nurses, but for the people? Why should people like me, who are admitted to hospital on a Saturday, have a greater chance of dying? He has to take on the vested interests and stand up for the people.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, if we look at the change happening in global healthcare, the big movement is towards putting patients in the driving seat of their own healthcare. If we want the NHS to be the best in the world, we have to be confident that we are giving patients the best care in the world. That is why I completely agree with him and why I said in my statement that there is no reason why this could not be something the whole House can unite behind. What we cannot do, however, is look at eight studies in five years and say that we will act on this just as soon as we can get a consensus in the medical profession. We have been trying to get that consensus now for over three years. There comes a time when you have to say, “Enough is enough” and do the right thing for patients.

Jeremy Hunt: As someone who I fully concede may have more experience of industrial relation disputes than me, let me just say this: it is very clear that we are able to progress when there is give and take from both sides; when both sides are prepared to negotiate and come to a deal that is in the interests of the service and in the interests of the people working in the service. That was not possible. It is not me who is saying that; that is was what Sir David Dalton, a highly respected independent chief executive, said in the letter he wrote to me last night.
	Some of the things that the BMA put out about the offer—for example, it put up on its website a pay calculator saying that junior doctors were going to have their pay cut by 30% to 50%—caused a huge amount of upset, anger and dismay, and were completely wrong. I do not think it would be very constructive for me to put in the House of Commons Library a list of all those things, when what I want to try to do is build trust and confidence. The differential between doctors and other workers in hospitals is what the BMA was seeking to protect. It still exists, but we have reduced it from what it was before because we think it is fairer that way and better for junior doctors.

Julian Lewis: May I add to what my long-time comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said by delving into a bit of history? In 1977, I was knocked off a motorcycle by a careless driver on a Sunday. Because staff were not in the hospital, the wound could not be cleaned until it was x-rayed and because the wound could not be cleaned, I got an infection. This is not just about increased mortality rates; it is about the prolongation and exacerbation of small or routine episodes and injuries. Will the Secretary of State, in his calm and measured way, say again to the House that when we look back on this episode people will be very surprised that it took nearly 40 years—from my accident—to bring about this long-overdue reform?

Tom Brake: There are huge pressures everywhere in the NHS. For instance, GP out-of-hours services are under an incredible strain and cover is very limited in some parts of the country. What is the Secretary of State doing about those pressures and the additional strain that could be triggered by an exodus of doctors, following the imposition of the doctors’ contract? Will he entertain the idea of a commission, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and by others on both sides of the House, to find a long-term consensual solution to the growing health and care challenges that we face?

Jeremy Hunt: The trouble with commissions is that they tend to take rather a long time to come up with their conclusions, and we need to sort out these problems now. That is why the Chancellor promised an extra £3.8 billion for the NHS next year, and why we said that we want 5,000 more GPs working in general practice, which will help out-of-hours services. We have a five-year plan that the NHS has the funding to implement, and that will transform out-of-hospital services. I hope that those developments will address the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. There was absolutely no reason to have this dispute, because the things that we are trying to sort out—seven-day care and safer care for patients—are what every doctor wants to happen. Indeed, they choose medicine as a profession from the highest of ethical motives, and we want to support them. I share his sadness that it has come to this, but given that the counter-party in the situation is not willing to budge, we have to take action to remove uncertainty and to do the right for patients and for doctors. I will certainly continue to engage. The new commission headed up by Professor Dame Sue Bailey will also look at wider issues of morale, which will make a big difference.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Kevin Barron: I had a further email on this subject from a doctor in my constituency this morning. He thanked me for forwarding replies from the Department, although he did say that they were disappointing. He said that the BMA had proposed a contract that met the Government’s cost-neutral requirements, but that it had been rejected. Is that true?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks with personal knowledge. One of the things that has been wrong with junior doctors’ contracts for many years is that basic pay is too low. They therefore feel under huge pressure to boost basic pay by premium working, and that has led to some of the distortions that we see. So, yes, it is a significant increase in basic pay, which will be a very big step forward.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a huge amount of support for doing the right thing for patients, which is why it is so extraordinary that the BMA has chosen to defend the indefensible, not to sit round and talk about how we can do this, as any reasonable doctor would have done and—to go back to the earlier question—to put out deeply misleading comments to its own members that have inflamed the situation and made it far worse than it needed to be.

Antoinette Sandbach: Will the Secretary of State draw to the shadow Secretary of State’s attention the research in the Netherlands that has shown that seven-day working has dramatically cut stillbirth rates—by 6.8% in the Netherlands—and has the potential to have a real impact on survival rates for young babies?

Rachael Maskell: On 5 December 2011, the Government tried to cut unsocial hours for “Agenda for Change” staff. At a time when morale right across the NHS is so low, will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will not bring forward cuts, because the reason behind the unsocial hours cut that I mentioned was to introduce seven-day working?

Jeff Smith: I met a large group of junior doctors in my constituency to discuss the new contract. They were highly professional and totally committed to the NHS, but for the first time some of them were considering working abroad. One of them told me that, although she loved her job, she would never let her daughter train as a junior doctor now. Does that not demonstrate that the low morale—the despair, frankly—and the likely flight of junior doctors as a consequence of imposition is a huge threat to the future of our NHS?

Diana R. Johnson: Hull has traditionally struggled to recruit doctors in specialties such as A&E, general practice and psychiatry. I am concerned about the royal colleges’ warning that the imposition of the contract will have detrimental effect on staff morale and staff retention in the NHS. Will this not make things even more difficult for areas such as Hull, which struggle to recruit in the first place?

Jeremy Hunt: We want more doctors and more nurses in the NHS, but in the end, if we are putting extra money in to recruit these extra doctors and nurses, it is fair to the public who are paying for their salaries to have reforms that mean their care gets better. That will apply to the hon. Lady’s constituents in Hull, who want a seven-day NHS, just as my constituents in Surrey do.

Liz McInnes: Can the Secretary of State clarify something in his statement for me? He says that “those working one in four Saturdays or more will receive a pay premium of 30%. That is higher on average than that available to nurses, midwives, paramedics and most other clinical staff”. The staff he cites will be employed on bands 4 to 9 under “Agenda for Change” terms and conditions. If they work Saturdays, they receive plain time plus 30% for working then, so can the Secretary of State tell me how he has calculated an average? I do not understand his mathematics.

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do that. The contract that we are going to implement gives junior doctors who work more than one in four Saturdays—so one in three Saturdays —a higher premium of 50%, so when taken on average, it is a higher premium for working on a Saturday.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), there were no strikes in Wales yesterday. However, on the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), there was an increase of 10% in the budget, equivalent 135 places for nurse training, which is so critical for cover. That may be what led to a communication that I received from a junior doctor in England who said, “Could we have your Minister for Wales, please?” What does it say about morale in the NHS in England when, in football and rugby parlance, the Minister has lost the confidence of the changing room?

Jeremy Hunt: I think that is the first time in living memory in this House that a Welsh MP has got up and said that they think things are better in the Welsh NHS. Just look at the waiting times that people face for basic operations on the NHS in Wales—far, far longer than in England. We will take no lectures about how to run the NHS from Labour in Wales.

Paul Blomfield: I represent three fine hospitals and one great medical school, and I spend a lot of time listening to junior doctors and medical students. The Secretary of State talks about the crisis in morale in the NHS among junior doctors. Does he not recognise that his handling of the dispute has done so much to enhance that crisis, and that today’s announcement will make it so much worse?

Jeremy Hunt: Not at all. The choice I had was to do something about mortality rates at weekends or to duck the issue. Under the Conservatives, we do not duck issues about mortality rates. We do the right thing for patients. After Labour’s record, I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would be a little more circumspect.

Points of Order

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In an earlier exchange in Energy and Climate Change questions, the Secretary of State said, in response to a question that I posed to her, that large-scale solar is already subsidy-free. I think she may have inadvertently misled the House. As I understand it, under the Government’s banding review, they are proposing a subsidy of £34 per megawatt-hour. How can I get the Secretary of State to correct her statement?

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in business questions, I raised the case of my constituents, Mike and Tina Trowhill. I had raised the matter in Prime Minister’s questions on 4 November and the Prime Minister had promised a meeting with my constituents. I raised it with the Leader of the House because it is now the middle of February and it has proved very difficult to arrange that meeting. The Leader of the House said that I had misinterpreted the response from the Prime Minister. I have checked Hansard for 4 November. I said:
	“Will the Prime Minister agree to meet Mike and Tina to discuss why we need national and local inquiries into what happened to baby ashes in such cases?”
	His response was:
	“I am happy to arrange that meeting.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 964.]
	I do not understand how I have misinterpreted that and, more to the point, how my constituents, who have now been waiting three months for a meeting with the Prime Minister, could have misinterpreted it? Can you assist me in how I should take the matter forward?

Housing Associations and the Right to Buy
	 — 
	SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Clive Betts: I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to present our report on housing associations and the right to buy. I would also like to thank Craig Bowdery, our Committee specialist; Professor Christine Whitehead, our specialist adviser; and Professor Ian Cole and his research colleagues at Sheffield Hallam University for their help in producing the report.
	There is clearly a housing crisis in this country, so the Committee wanted to look in greater detail at one of the Government’s key policies: extending the right to buy to tenants of housing associations. That was a Conservative manifesto commitment, so the Committee did not question whether it should be implemented. As is appropriate for Select Committees, however, we scrutinised how it was being implemented. We also looked at other Government policies, such as the 1% reduction in social rents, pay to stay and starter homes, which will all have an impact on the provision of social housing and on housing associations.
	We had a large response to our request for evidence, with more than 175 written submissions, and we heard from a range of witnesses, including housing association chiefs from across England, Scotland and Wales, council leaders and representatives of tenants and mortgage lenders.
	Throughout our investigations, we found a great deal of uncertainty—that was a key point—and a lack of detail. The robustness of the funding model for the right to buy is extremely questionable, and we call on the Government to cost the programmes fully as a matter of urgency.
	Shortly after our investigations began, a deal to implement the extended right to buy voluntarily was reached between the Government and the National Housing Federation. We recognise that a voluntary deal is a way of delivering a key policy from the Government’s manifesto while maintaining the independence of housing associations, and that, in the circumstances, it is the best way forward for both. However, there remains much uncertainty in the wording of the agreement. A minority of associations voted against it, and some abstained, and we do not yet know how the right to buy will be imposed on them and how binding the terms of a voluntary agreement can be.
	Another issue is exactly how much discretion each association will have to decline sales. Can they, for example, choose not sell any of their homes in a certain area, or will they sell them on a case-by-case basis? Similarly, what is the appeal process for tenants who are refused the right to buy?
	The extended right to buy is designed to increase home ownership and housing supply. We support those aspirations and the principle of giving people the opportunity to own their own home, provided that the homes sold under the right to buy are replaced on a one-for-one basis and that housing continues to be delivered across all tenures to meet the country’s housing needs. We feel there are unresolved issues, and we remain concerned that the Government’s policies could have a detrimental effect on the provision of accessible and affordable housing across all tenures, particularly on affordable rented homes.
	We looked particularly at houses in rural areas, where there is often high demand. Limited land availability means that it can be challenging to build new homes to replace those sold through the right to buy. For our rural communities to thrive, it is important that young people and those on lower incomes can afford to live in them. The terms of the voluntary agreement included the ability of housing associations to offer a portable discount in place of selling a home. Given that rural areas such as national parks can be large, it remains to be seen how that will work in practice.
	We are concerned that the extended right to buy could hinder the provision of specialist and supported housing schemes. Homes in such schemes are expensive to build and can be harder to replace, but they provide essential services to those living in them. We also believe that to avoid confusion or possible legal challenges, restrictive covenants on specific sites and properties built using charitable funds should be explicitly exempt from the extended right to buy.
	We found that large numbers of homes sold through the statutory right to buy to council tenants had become rental properties in the private sector in a relatively short time. That is a concern because the private rented sector is often more expensive than social housing, and the quality of homes can, in some cases, be lower. Selling much needed social assets at a discount, only for them to become more expensive in the private rented sector, is therefore a significant concern for the Committee.
	Measures to restrict homes sold through the right to buy from ending up in the private rented sector need to be explored. We suggest that those might include a provision that any right-to-buy homes resold within 10 years should first be offered to local housing associations or the local council, which could choose to buy them at market price. They might also include a restrictive covenant requiring a minimum period of owner-occupation. Those are matters for exploration.
	The Government propose to fund the extended right to buy with the proceeds from the sale of high-value council homes. The definition of “high value” has not yet been announced, and it is long overdue. The precise mechanism by which this policy will be funded contains too many unknowns and unclear definitions. However, we observe that public policies should usually be funded by the Government, rather than through a levy on local authorities. If only those councils that have retained some housing stock are required to make the payment to fund the right-to-buy discounts, the effect on communities, and the financial risk for local authorities, will be greater in some areas than in others. That is another reason for our belief that a national policy should be funded nationally.
	We received much evidence on the proposed funding, and we are concerned that the sums do not add up. We cannot be sure that the proceeds from selling council homes will cover the costs of providing right-to-buy discounts, the costs of building replacement council homes and the brownfield regeneration fund. We urge the Government to publish their figures and to clarify the funding mechanism as soon as possible.
	The success of the extended right to buy largely depends on the homes that are sold being replaced and on the housing supply being maintained. We appreciate the size of the challenge of building more homes to meet demand, but we seek more details from the Government on how they will meet their objective of achieving at least one-for-one replacement of the homes sold. They must take steps to ensure that the homes built to offset right-to-buy and council home sales meet the needs of local communities and have a tenure mix that reflects local circumstances.
	Another policy that could impact on housing associations and the provision of rented housing is the new legal duty on councils to ensure the provision of 200,000 new starter homes across all reasonably sized sites. It is important that homes for affordable rent are also built where the need exists, particularly because starter homes now count towards satisfying the affordable housing allocation in section 106 agreements. Starter homes should not be built at the expense of other forms of tenure; it is vital that homes for affordable rent are built to reflect local needs. To put that in context, about 250,000 housing association rented homes have been built in the last 10 years through section 106 agreements.
	Another policy change is that housing associations have been required to adapt to the fact that the Government are reducing social rents by 1% a year for four years. That reduction in housing association’s income is significant and could impact on the pastoral services provided. It could also impact on associations’ development capacity and the viability of supported housing schemes. It will affect different housing associations in different ways. We welcome the recent announcement that supported housing rents will be exempt from the 1% reduction for a year while the Government review the situation.
	Before autumn statement 2016, the Government should provide some certainty over rent levels post-2020, to assist long-term business planning and increase investor confidence. We support their efforts to deregulate housing associations, and we argue that giving them the freedom to set their own rent levels is the next logical step.
	It is clear that the housing association sector is undergoing a substantial change. We encourage the regulator to adopt a framework that is based on risk, rather than factors such as size, and that recognises the sector’s diversity. Regardless of how housing associations might change in future, it is vital that they remain mindful of their social mission and philanthropic purpose.
	The Government have ambitious plans to address the severe housing shortage, and they are seeking to do so by prioritising affordable home ownership. None the less, rented housing at full market rents and sub-market rents will continue to be essential to meet the needs of many in our society and should exist alongside other forms of housing.
	Finally, I thank all members of the Committee for working assiduously and collectively to produce this unanimously agreed report.

Philip Hollobone: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his statement, and him and his Committee on its report? I was interested in conclusion 96, which says:
	“It is important that housing associations which generate surpluses apply them to delivering new housing.”
	In his report, the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that the department has identified
	“that the housing association sector had a surplus of £2.4 billion”,
	which it could make use of. Does he share my concern that there is tremendous scope for more efficiencies in housing associations? Is he as concerned as I am that some chief executives of housing associations receive very large salaries indeed?

John Healey: I welcome this unanimous cross-party report, which reinforces criticism and opposition already voiced by Conservative Members and by the Conservative-led Local Government Association about the huge loss of affordable homes in rural and urban areas alike as a result of the Housing and Planning Bill. The other place is set to examine the Bill’s provisions on housing associations’ right to buy and the forced sale of council homes on 3 March, so what steps will my hon. Friend take to make sure that peers know all about this important report before then?

Clive Betts: I would have thought that making this statement today was a start to that process and give the report some publicity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be sending messages to his colleagues in the other place where he wants to draw particular aspects to their attention. A key issue is how the right-to-buy scheme should be funded. I think it would be very helpful for their lordships if the Government were to produce the calculations on how the sale of high-value council assets in relation to right-to-buy discounts, the replacement of the sold-off council homes, and the brownfield regeneration fund—which I think we can all support as a very good principle—can all be funded. We need to see the Government’s figures given that we had evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing that the maximum amount raised from the levy would be about £2.2 billion a year, which would not cover the three costs that need to be covered to meet the Government’s intentions.

Jim Shannon: I, too, thank the Chair of the Select Committee for bringing forward this report. I have always supported the right to buy. This is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but I still want to ask a question. In Northern Ireland, we have changed the tenancy arrangements such that a tenant has to stay for an extra five years before they can have a right to purchase. Another change is that tenants have no right to buy a bungalow or adapted disabled accommodation because of constituents’ insatiable demand for such housing. Has the Chair given any consideration to those two conditions in Northern Ireland? Did any discussions take place with the Northern Ireland Assembly or with other devolved regional Administrations to gauge their opinion on what they do? That would perhaps allow us to have a uniform set of rules or criteria across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Clive Betts: We had witnesses from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so we did look across the board. We did not look specifically at extending the qualifying period for the right to buy, but we did look in some detail at supported housing. We thought that the discount should not be eligible in relation to the right to buy. The problem is that in some cases where a property cannot be sold, a portable discount can be given to another property, but if a person needs supported housing, then saying to them, “You can’t buy that house but you can have a portable discount to another supported housing unit somewhere else” does not really add up. We need clarification on that because we were very concerned about the prospect of losing supported housing in this way.

Clive Betts: I would probably be disappointed if the Minister did agree with everything in the report. The Committee members were absolutely at one on this. We support the aspiration of home ownership—how could we not when we are homeowners ourselves? People would look at us askance if we came to a different view. We did not say that we were against the right to buy; rather, we raised a number of fundamental questions about how it could be funded. We would like the Minister to provide in response the information, the evidence and the facts and figures to back up the Government’s policy so that we can have a better view as to how it will work in practice.

Future of the Union: English Votes for English Laws

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to introduce PACAC’s latest report to the House. Our main conclusion is that while there is evidence that the principle behind EVEL commands popular support, we have significant doubts that the current Standing Orders are the right answer or that they represent a sustainable solution to the English question. They may be unlikely to survive the election of a Government who cannot command a double majority of English and UK MPs. The Government should use the remainder of the 12-month period in the run-up to their promised review of the Standing Orders to rethink the issue and to develop proposals that are more comprehensible, more likely to command the confidence of all political parties represented in the House of Commons, and therefore likely to be constitutionally durable.
	On complexity, we note with concern the comments of a former Clerk of the House, Sir William McKay, who described the new Standing Orders as
	“a forest in which I lose myself”.
	That former Clerks of the House of Commons—individuals steeped in decades of learning about the law of Parliament and parliamentary procedure—should have difficulty in discerning what these Standing Orders mean should raise serious doubts about them.
	It is regrettable that the new Standing Orders have been drafted, like legislation, by Government parliamentary draftsmen. Never again should Standing Orders be drafted by the Government, rather than by our own Clerks. Revisions made to Standing Orders to make them more coherent and transparent should be made by the House, for the House, as a matter of principle.
	On sustainability, our report notes the stridency of the opposition to the new Standing Orders from those on the Opposition Benches—all those on the Opposition Benches—which underlines their vulnerability. Only the Conservative party voted in favour of the new arrangements. The Standing Orders therefore face a high risk of being overridden as soon as there is a non-Conservative majority in the House of Commons.
	The shadow Leader of the House noted in his evidence to the Committee:
	“It is certainly feasible, if not probable”
	that a future Labour Administration would revoke the new Standing Orders. That the Standing Orders have attracted such hostility and can be removed on the basis of a simple majority must raise doubts about whether they can ever be regarded as anything more than a temporary expedient. Currently, they cannot be considered to be part of a stable constitutional settlement that will endure.
	It is too soon to say what the constitutional implications of the new Standing Orders might be, but we note the difficulties raised by trying to reconcile EVEL with the continued operation of the Barnett formula. It is increasingly perverse that decisions made about spending in England determine what is spent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Alternative schemes of territorial funding will have to be examined.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has described the devolution test used for the certification of English only, or English and Welsh-only, issues as “a very simple test.” It is difficult to see how a neat, one-size-fits-all test can be applied to a highly complex, political and asymmetrical set of devolution dispensations. We note that it is highly likely that interested parties from inside and outside the House will want to make representations to the Speaker on how he adjudicates this test. We agree with the Procedure Committee that there is a case for the Speaker to establish and publish a procedure for how he would handle such representations.
	Above all—this is of most importance—our report points out that the ad hoc approach to change in the constitution of the Union, which dates back only to the devolution reforms initiated by the Labour Government in 1997, and which has treated Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England in different ways at different times, has been characteristic of constitutional reform since the 1990s. The Government must abandon this ad hoc approach and explore a comprehensive approach for the future of relationships between the Westminster Parliament and the component parts of the United Kingdom. That will be the subject of our continuing inquiry into the future of the Union, and of our subsequent reports on the subject. We are pursuing this by developing conversations, in private and in public, with an open mind to build up trust and understanding between all the Parliaments and Assemblies of the United Kingdom and among all political parties. We have had a successful visit to the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff, and we will visit Holyrood in March. We will issue further reports to the House in due course on the progress of those conversations.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree in part with the hon. Lady, and I am grateful for her remarks.. The McKay commission was as unsatisfactory, in many ways, as the present proposals. It is in the nature of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly that English MPs have no say over the laws that they make, so the veto to which she refers is merely a quid pro quo. Interestingly—and I stress this point—the principle behind English votes for English laws seemed to have quite a lot of popular support, even in Scotland, although that view is controversial and not entirely shared by the Scottish National party member of the Committee. As for the constitutional convention, we have not taken evidence on the matter. I do not think that there is an appetite for reopening the entire British constitutional to an interminable process that would take years. We need a quicker solution.

Patrick Grady: In the SNP, we have never objected in principle to the concept of English votes for English laws, not least because it is a logical consequence of independence for Scotland. However, the Committee’s report confirms, as we have said all along, that the current Standing Order procedure is a guddle, a bùrach and, in short, a complete mess. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system is further complicated by the complete lack of transparency in the estimates process, as confirmed today by the Leader of the House, which effectively means that Scottish MPs will have no real say on how Barnett consequentials play out in Scotland, and therefore the entire system of EVEL must be urgently reviewed?

David Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship of the Committee. Its consideration of the future of the Union is an extremely useful piece of work. The report sets out some useful background to where we are now, and explains what has led to the imposition of EVEL through Standing Orders. The problem dates back to the West Lothian question, which was well rehearsed but which, the Committee concluded—albeit on a divided vote—was given insufficient attention in 1997 when the legislation was considered. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is one further lesson we can learn from the report, it is that in all matters constitutional, we should hurry slowly?

Bernard Jenkin: In my speech in the Chamber on Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, I said that we might rue the day we passed the legislation. Even the then Prime Minister has rued the day that he passed it. Now is not the time for regrets, however; now is the time to learn from experience. There is some urgency to resolve the very serious anomalies that now exist in our constitutional arrangements—for example, they exploded during the general election, as we remark in our report, and perhaps even determined its outcome—in order to provide stability. We should tread carefully, but with some urgency.

Paul Flynn: This is a worthwhile report. It identifies EVEL as a foolish piece of legislation that will, perversely, live up to its acronym and accelerate the process of the break-up of the United Kingdom by putting up barriers between the four countries. It has already created great resentment by creating four classes of MPs.
	Does the hon. Gentleman rather regret following the addiction, which has become an incurable one in his party, of blaming Labour Governments for everything that has ever gone wrong? The suggestion is that the Labour Government of 1997 was remiss in not taking account of the West Lothian question—the expression was coined in 1977 by Enoch Powell, after a speech by Tam Dalyell—but no party has tried to come to grips with it. It really is an imaginative rewriting of history, trying to get some kind of retrospective justification, to suggest that it was a live issue in 1997, when it was not. Have we not followed a large number of ad hoc, piecemeal decisions by this House by making another, even more piecemeal, decision?

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to all members of the Committee who have contributed to the report. It is a pleasure to work with them. I do not entirely share his view that this is a “foolish piece of legislation”, because we do not use the word “foolish” in the report and it is not legislation. We do not blame the Labour Government for everything, but I did just point out that the former Labour Prime Minister has expressed such a regret.
	The fundamental point is that we must end this ad hoc approach to constitutional reform. We must take a much more comprehensive approach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Edward Leigh: I sit on the Procedure Committee, which has done an exhaustive study on this matter, but I am speaking for myself. I must say that my problem with all this—both my hon. Friend and I are romantic Unionists, who think the Union is more important than anything else—is that we are inflaming opinion in Scotland and Wales, but our current arrangements will not change the result of a single part of a single Bill throughout this Parliament, because we have an overall majority. If we do not have an overall majority next time, the other political parties, given that every other political party in the House is dead set against it, will simply cancel the Standing Orders on a wet, rainy afternoon, and no one will care because it would have been on page 20 of the manifesto.
	Is not the solution to all this still to try to work towards some form of consensus? Surely it should be possible for those on the two Front Benches to work out something that actually solves this problem, and if it is not possible, we should at least try. Otherwise, what are we doing, apart from inflaming opinion against the Union in Scotland?

Bernard Jenkin: I am acutely aware of that. We have argued about this, and I agree with my hon. Friend much more than I used to about the danger of inflaming opinion in Scotland. It has to be said, however, that having produced this report today—I did one interview on “Good Morning Scotland”—there has not been a huge reaction to it. It is a very Westminster village, techie subject, but the problem is that it has the potential to create deep political grievances.
	It was a fatal error for the 1997 Parliament to consider this issue too boring for words and to ignore it. We will rue that day. To base a constitutional reform on the complete absence of consensus is extremely dangerous, but that is what we have done with these Standing Orders. That is why I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be working towards some form of consensus. That may be impossible: in putting in place these structures, we may have created a constitutional Gordian knot that cannot now be undone or resolved. In that case, I hope that the conversations we are beginning to open up with all parts of the United Kingdom will lead us towards an altogether different kind of debate about how to settle the future of the four countries that compose the United Kingdom.

Steven Paterson: I would contradict the hon. Gentleman because this issue is headline news in Scotland. It is a really big deal and it is newsworthy. Where I agree with him, however, is that he is quite correct to point to the asymmetric nature of devolution. Devolution took decades, and we are not finished forming it yet—I hope there is only one destination that devolution can reach—but these proposals were rushed through extremely quickly and I quite agree that they need to be binned. We must think again about how to make this work, and we must achieve consensus with the Scottish National party. I hope he agrees that if there is an opportunity to sit down and thrash out the proposals, we can do so.

Bernard Jenkin: The proposals only become an issue in Scotland if they are misrepresented—but they are capable of being misrepresented, and that is why they are unsatisfactory.
	I cannot vote on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and all this is trying to do is to make sure that there is a measure of restraint on how he votes on the same matters in relation to my constituency. That is perfectly logical. The problem is that what is resolved for Scotland in the form of the Scottish Parliament is resolved for England in a completely different and almost incomprehensible way. The lack of consensus on that leaves us in a very difficult situation.
	However, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to go around stirring up a false grievance in his constituency, which would be quite difficult, on the basis that he should somehow be able to vote about schools, hospitals or even tax rates in Harwich, when he cannot vote on those matters in respect of his own constituents. The Scottish Parliament will vary the rate of Scottish income tax; that is not something on which he can vote in this House. These matters are very complicated.
	This is my advice to the House. Let us approach this in a different way. Let us have a more frank and open conversation. Perhaps we should have more conversations in private so that we can befriend and learn to trust each other and make progress on that basis.

Philip Hollobone: I commend my hon. Friend for his statement, and he and his Committee for their excellent report. Pages 25 to 27 are packed with juicy soundbites. One is:
	“It is highly regrettable that the 1997 Parliament voted to proceed with devolution…without proper consideration being given to the well-rehearsed West Lothian Question.”
	I say, “Hear, hear” to that. The report goes on to say that
	“we have significant doubts that the current Standing Orders are the right answer or that they represent a sustainable solution.”
	It also states that it is up to the Government to be
	“working towards a new and durable constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom”.
	He has entitled his report “part one” and I understand that further parts are to follow. How many volumes does he think his Committee will produce? In which volume will he come up with the answer to this thorny question?

Bernard Jenkin: I cannot answer either of the last two questions, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and for reading out to the House some of the report. This may be a long journey, but I think we must approach it with an open mind. We must be prepared to think what we thought we would never think. We must be prepared to sit down with people we have implacably opposed in the past. I hope, in that spirit, that the House will accept the report and that it will support the Committee’s work on future inquiries and reports.

Backbench Business

Equitable Life

Bob Blackman: I beg to move,
	That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses and that the compensation scheme is now closed to new applicants; and calls on the Government to ensure that the entire existing budget allocated for compensation to date is paid to eligible policyholders and to make a further commitment to provide full compensation for relative losses to all victims of this scandal.
	I draw Members’ attention to the fact that I am the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders. I share that honour with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who regrettably has to be in another debate, otherwise he would have been here. I hope that he will be able to get here and put his point of view before we conclude. The all-party parliamentary group is one of the largest groups in Parliament, if not the largest group, with 195 members drawn from all political parties.
	When I was elected in May 2010, I signed only a limited number of pledges. One that I was very happy to sign, having investigated the matter fully, was a pledge to seek justice for Equitable Life policyholders. There is no doubt that this has been an outrageous scandal in respect of the length of time it has lasted and the repeated failure of Governments of all persuasions adequately to compensate people who were the victims of a scam. These were hard-working people who invested their life savings in a pension scheme that they believed was secure.
	We all know that when one invests on the stock market or in such schemes, the market can go up or down. The difference between this scam and other such schemes is that Equitable Life went round inducing people to put their life savings into it, promising huge bonuses and payouts. It swept up enormous amounts of money and numbers of people who thought that it was a great scheme. In reality, the scheme could not finance itself. It could never meet the commitments that it had made. That was very dangerous, but the regulator knew that it was going on, as did the Government and the Treasury. They conspired to prevent it becoming public knowledge so that people carried on investing their money and losing money.
	To make matters worse, it took not only court action, but the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to bring to the attention of the public that this was maladministration of the worst kind. The last parliamentary ombudsman made it clear in her excellent report that Equitable Life policyholders who had suffered a relative loss should be put back in the position they would have been in had they not suffered as a result of this scam. I seek to ensure in this Parliament, as we did in the last, that all Equitable Life policyholders are given the compensation they are due.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that clear statement.
	There are three sets of policyholders: the pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who were to get not a single penny under the compensation scheme; the with-profits annuitants, who were to get 100% compensation; and the pension holders, who got 22.4% of their relative losses, as my hon. Friend said. The coalition Government set up a compensation scheme, which I was pleased to support. However, it is a scandal that if someone purchased their policy on 31 August 1992, they got nothing, but if they purchased it on 1 September 1992, they got 100%. The rationale was that if the pre-1992 trapped annuitants had looked at the regulated accounts, they could have seen that there was a problem and that it was a scam. The reality is that when people sign up to such schemes, they do not expect to have to do that. I applaud the Government for taking steps, following the legislation, to partly compensate the pre-1992 trapped annuitants.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that clear conclusion.
	The Government allocated £1.5 billion of compensation to policyholders who had lost money. Some £45 million was then promised and delivered to the pre-1992 trapped annuitants. The Chancellor accepted at the Dispatch Box in November 2010 that the total loss was some £4.1 billion, so the shortfall in compensation is £2.6 billion.

Bob Blackman: When people make an investment decision, they understand that the market can go up or down. What made this scheme different from other investment choices was that it was a scam, and we should recognise it as such. It was a scandal. There is a moral duty, as hon. Members have said, on the Government to provide full compensation.
	What has changed is that the Government set a time limit for the submission of new applications for compensation and said that they had to be in by 31 December 2015. Therefore, we now know the total number of people who are due compensation and can look at how the compensation scheme is operating. I have no doubt that the Minister will outline the progress that has been made in compensating individual policyholders.
	I want to draw attention to two elements. A contingency fund of £100 million was deliberately set aside because, at that time, it was not known how many policyholders would need to be compensated. Also, because it has not been possible to trace a large number of policyholders—I think it is about 110,000—there has been an underspend of some £39 million. My first ask of the Minister is that that £139 million goes to the people who have suffered loss. That would not cost the Treasury anything because it has already allocated that money.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.
	Because of the different categories of policyholder, the pre-1992 trapped annuitants—of which 9,000 are still alive—have a minimum age of 88, and most are in their late 80s or early 90s. They are coming to the end of their lives, and it is right that they should seek and receive compensation. It is wrong and reprehensible that some of those individuals who invested their money have had to exist on pension credit, when they expected to have a proper pension scheme. Those 9,000 people should receive the £100 million contingency fund, which would lead roughly—I will leave the Minister to consider the detail—to an average of about £12,000 compensation each. That would be a dramatic change for those individuals who are coming to the end of their lives.

Bob Blackman: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. We now know how many victims there are, and what the payouts have been. For with-profit annuitants, 38,135 victims have received £336 million, and those payments will continue over the next few years. However, 890,472 victims have received only 22.4%, and it has been difficult for members of the scheme to understand the basis on which that has been delivered. As has been mentioned, the Government said that they could not afford all that money to pay people out, but people who are in that position will need compensation over several years. They do not need all the money to be put into the scheme upfront; they need it to be spread over a number of years while they are pensioners. As the economy recovers, the Government should supply additional funds, as the Treasury can afford it, to top up the scheme and ensure that those who suffered relative loss receive the full compensation package due.

Bob Blackman: We must find a further £2.6 billion to meet the commitment that all of us signed up to. Those of us who made that pledge said that we wanted full and fair compensation, and the Chancellor made it clear at the Dispatch Box that that was the figure, although he was only able to come up with £1.5 billion at the time. The shortfall is now £2.6 billion. I could go through a whole list of other things that the Chancellor has found money for but that have perhaps less merit than the plight of those elderly people who invested their money.
	I do not expect the Minister suddenly to say, “Don’t worry, we’re going to provide all the money. Here it is”—it would be good if he did—but the Chancellor will be at the Dispatch Box on 16 March to deliver the Budget, and I hope that he will announce further compensation for the pre-1992 trapped annuitants so that they receive full compensation. I also hope he will confirm that none of the money that has already been pledged will be clawed back at the end of the scheme, and that further moneys will be made available as and when that is allowed in the Treasury forecast.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on behalf of the victims of the Equitable Life saga. It surprises me that the Treasury has not yet conceded that it will have to spend the £139 million that it has in its coffers on this compensation, as it expected to, rather than take it as a windfall. Surely that is the starting point.

Bob Blackman: I completely agree with my hon. Friend—that is the starting point, but to be fair to the Treasury, we expected and hoped that the agency would be able to trace more victims of the scandal so that they could receive the compensation due. Tracing has taken place over an extended period, and I applaud the Government for using many different means to try to trace those individuals. Some people will have died, some have moved multiple times, and some were in all sorts of pension schemes that then moved on. Some people had small pension policies and may not have seen any point in requesting compensation. However, we now know exactly how many victims there are, and there is no excuse for retaining the contingency or the underspend.
	I know that a number of Members wish to speak, so in conclusion, this is all about justice for people who have suffered loss. Indeed, not only did they suffer that loss, but it was avoidable. The Government, the company and the regulator knew that the scam was going on, but it was too big to fail because had it done so, the Government would have had to come up with all the compensation straightaway. This is a matter of justice, and on behalf of the all-party group for justice for equitable life policyholders, I pay tribute to the Equitable Members Action Group for its wonderful work over the years in bringing the plight of those people to light in both the public eye and in Parliament. The fight will go on until every single policyholder who suffered relative loss is receiving full compensation. I invite the Minister to receive comments from across the House, and to do the right thing by people who have suffered injustice.

Melanie Onn: I have been contacted by a number of constituents who were affected by the collapse of Equitable Life. One woman wrote to me to say:
	“I myself have lost over £40,000, and have only received £12,000 in compensation. Does this sound fair to you?”
	Successive Governments have failed to appreciate the anger that this issue has caused people. A couple who contacted me asked why the Treasury had provided 100% compensation to Icelandic bank depositors, when they had received only a fifth of the sum that they were due and had planned their retirement around. They said:
	“In the years prior to our retirement we actually took money from our own savings to top up our pension payments and feel that we have lost twice over. We would have been better off being irresponsible and spent every penny we had and then relied on the State. It seems the government departments are hoping that we will die and the problem will go away.”

Rupa Huq: The Library briefing points out that there is a ticking time bomb because the beneficiaries of the scheme are elderly. Like my hon. Friend, I have received representations from many constituents. Has she heard the same sentiment that I heard expressed by Brian Watkins, who faces losing up to £40,000 and thinks that the Government are waiting until policyholders die, so that they do not have to deal with them? Surely, we should reassure those people, and the Chancellor should find that money down the back of the sofa.

Melanie Onn: I agree, and our constituents in London and the north of the country clearly share the view that this is a significant issue. People feel seriously let down by the Government’s failure to act on this matter in a timely fashion. I wonder whether the Minister is confident that the current regulations are strong enough to prevent any repeat of what happened. Future investors will be particularly keen to know that they are not going to fall into a similar trap and that if a similar situation were to come to light in the future, the Government would engage with the victims and allow their voices to be heard when trying to devise a solution.

Melanie Onn: It must be a significant concern to people to find themselves at retirement age without the money they were expecting, having prudently invested. The example I gave was of people taking money out of their savings to top up their pensions, and they would have expected to have some security in their older years.
	It is welcome that the Government do step in where regulation has failed; but unfortunately, the delivery is too often lacking. We know about this in Grimsby, because there has also been appalling maladministration of the fishermen’s pensions and the fishermen’s compensation scheme. Despite it being 30 years since those were due to pay out, a constituent of mine is still waiting and has not received the £3,000 that he is due, simply because of poor record keeping. The Government must understand that when compensation packages are devised, the mechanism to deliver them must be properly put in place and all the calculations must be done appropriately, and where money is promised, it must be delivered. The Government need to ensure that the regulation of these industries is robust and they need to be quicker to compensate those who lose out in the future.

Gordon Henderson: Much of what I wanted to say has been mentioned already by other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has been a fierce and consistent champion for Equitable Life policyholders. I wish to make very clear my continued support for the Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency, and I believe the best way to do that would be to resurrect some comments I made in a speech in this House almost six years ago. That speech was one of my first after being elected in 2010, and it brings into sharp relief just how long some of us have been trying to get justice for those of our constituents affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, some of whom lost thousands of pounds.
	I pointed out the following in that speech:
	“Several hon. Members have suggested today that the Equitable Life scandal—and a scandal it was—is complicated, but for me it is actually quite simple. It is about fairness to a group of people who were badly let down by the regulatory failures of their Government. I went into the recent general election supporting a Conservative manifesto that made a promise to Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency. It said:
	‘We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.’”

Gordon Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention.
	I continued that speech by saying:
	“I wish to take this opportunity to assure policyholders in my constituency that I for one do not intend to go back on that election pledge.
	Most people accept that Equitable Life policyholders were the subject of Government maladministration, and that is certainly the view of the ombudsman, Ann Abraham. There is some dispute on all sides, however, about the level of compensation that should be paid to policyholders. Sir John Chadwick’s report established that the relative loss suffered by Equitable Life amounted to between £4 billion and £4.8 billion, and the Financial Secretary, in his statement to the House this July, supported that figure. However, Sir John then used a series of convoluted calculations and speculative assumptions that allowed him to suggest a cap on the total amount of compensation that should be paid. He then went on to reduce that cap figure to just 10% of the relative loss figure that he himself originally calculated.
	One of Sir John’s most telling assumptions was that the majority of policyholders would have invested in Equitable Life irrespective of maladministration. That is a very big assumption that cannot be proved or disproved…
	Like many Members, I have been in touch with many of those policyholders, and all they want is fairness, because they are fair-minded people. However, they are not stupid people, and they recognise that in these times of austerity even they must shoulder some of the burden needed to bring down the country’s massive debt mountain.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 834-35.]
	That was my position in 2010 and that position has not changed.
	The Government went some way towards compensating those who lost money in the Equitable Life scandal, but that compensation met only part of the loss, so the Equitable Life investors in my constituency received partial justice. In truth, partial justice is no justice at all, and I urge the Government to give people justice now.

Michael Weir: It is a somewhat novel experience for me, as a Scottish National party Member, to stand up to support a motion that starts by saying
	“this House congratulates the Government”.
	However, I do so because this matter has been dragging on for a large number of years. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) said that he had been dealing with this for six years. I was first elected to this House in 2001, and I have been talking about it for coming up to 15 years now. This all started when the policyholders won their case before the House of Lords in 2000, so they have been fighting this for 16 years. Many Administrations refused to take it seriously, but I give the coalition Government credit for finally grasping the nettle and introducing a scheme. We may not agree with all the terms of the scheme, but that Government did do something about this. I see from a note I received from the Library that it appears that, when the scheme closed on 31 December, some 125,000 policyholders had not come forward to submit a claim. That is a large number of people who have not even got any money out of the existing scheme.
	It took a report from the ombudsman to get the ball rolling on compensation, and I suppose the reason we are still debating it today was her conclusion:
	“the diversion of scarce public resources is a relevant consideration which should be taken into account and weighed in the balance along with other relevant considerations”.
	In introducing this debate, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that the agreed sum outstanding was some £2.5 billion, but it is not entirely straightforward to see exactly what sum is required to put the policyholders back to where they would have been in terms of the relative loss. I have seen figures of up to £5 billion and as low as £500 million in this regard. First, we have to be clear exactly what the figure is. The Government, policyholders and the Equitable Members Action Group must agree what the figure is, because at the moment a large range of figures are being talked about.
	The action group has consistently campaigned for full compensation. It is a disgrace that people have got less than a quarter of what they should have received, all because of the Treasury. That is where I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said that the Government stand behind the regulator, as in this case the Treasury was the regulator for the relevant period during the 1990s. The Government have a direct responsibility for what went wrong in this case, which is why compensation is due. As has been pointed out, many policyholders have received compensation amounting to only about 22% of the losses.
	Over the years, like many Members, constituents, many of them elderly, have come to me about this matter. Sadly, time has whittled down their numbers. One constituent, a Mrs Smith from Arbroath, told me the other week that she did everything she should have done. She made provision for what she expected to be a relatively good retirement not reliant on Government funds, but she was robbed of it because of a regulatory failure. Equitable Life was touted as a long-established, steady company. I used to be a practising solicitor and remember it well—not that I ever put any money into it, thankfully—but no one then realised the problem lurking below the surface.
	The Government need to grasp the point about what happens from hereon in. We are now asking people to make greater provision for their own pensions, but that will work only if people are confident they will get the pension they are investing in. Equitable Life and other such scandals have greatly undermined that confidence. We need to show that when something goes wrong, through the fault of the Government, compensation will be available to put people in the position they would have been in. If we do not, the danger is that people will not be convinced to invest in the new pension landscape. In the future, the Government might face a much higher bill, because if we do not encourage people to invest in their own pensions, the state will inevitably have to step in. I urge the Minister to reconsider, given the confusion about the figure.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Caroline Nokes: I can reassure Members that I probably will not take up seven minutes.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) not just on securing this important debate, but on his tireless work on Equitable Life since he entered this place in 2010. This sorry saga has been extremely long running. The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) indicated that he had been speaking about Equitable Life in this place for 15 years. I know from EMAG, which has also worked very hard and diligently provided information to Members, that every constituency has roughly 2,000 people affected by Equitable Life. I wanted to highlight that figure.
	When I was first elected in 2010, I could reliably expect about 20 or 30 people to contact me about Equitable Life every time it was raised in the House. Ahead of today’s debate, the number of constituents who either emailed or came to see me in my surgery dwindled to just half a dozen. I found that interesting but also incredibly sad. There are many reasons why our constituents are no longer contacting us. First and foremost, there is the sad truth that many have passed away, and some are too frail to make contact. They might not have easy access to email. They might be in care homes or reliant on family or carers. For them, it is not simply a case of popping off a quick email. In many ways, however, the saddest cases are those who have simply given up and no longer see the value in contacting us because they do not expect anything to change. Those who were once optimistic they would recover their losses now no longer come to our surgeries because they do not expect to get anything.
	Those who remain in contact, however, are forceful in their arguments. One reason they feel so aggrieved is that, as we have heard repeatedly, they acted responsibly and did the right thing—or thought they had. They made provision for their retirement and took out policies they expected to provide them with a comfortable old age and the means to support themselves in their retirement. The Government need to encourage and incentivise people to do exactly that. Equitable Life was a very sorry saga indeed, and one that has left a legacy of suspicion and mistrust. Those who invested bitterly regret their decision, but it has longer tentacles than that. Even today people point to Equitable Life as a reason not to bother saving for their future. We must not allow that to happen.
	I do not intend to repeat the comments of the chair of the APPG or other hon. Members. They have already set out the case in the motion. Instead, I want to highlight the difficult circumstances of some of my constituents—good decent people saving for their retirement. For them, a foreign holiday is now out of the question. They are reliant on public transport in an area that has little of it, because they cannot afford to run a car. They expected their retirement to be comfortable; they did not expect still to be working—in many cases, well into their 70s. Eight years after the ombudsman’s report, they remain of the view that the compensation they have received is not adequate.
	I know what my hon. Friend the Minister will say: he will highlight the element of the ombudsman’s report emphasising that the Government had to recognise fairness to the taxpayer as well policyholders. I do not regard £1.5 billion as “diddly squat”, as one of my constituents described it. It is an enormous sum, and I welcome the Government’s efforts to identify and compensate policyholders. My one request is that, for the sake of the Equitable pensioners, he keep the situation under review. I know the scheme is closed, but should public finances permit it, he should consider reopening it.

Crispin Blunt: I declare an interest: I invested in Equitable Life while a special adviser. I cheerfully put 17.5% of my salary into an Equitable Life scheme over four years, when I worked for Malcolm Rifkind, and then watched, after I was elected to this place, as the whole Equitable debacle developed over the next decade or so. But at least I was sharing the pain of many of my constituents—well north of 3,000, according to an estimate given to me. The situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) laid out is exactly my experience. To start with, there was a substantial lobby, but that dwindled, although there remain some persistent people—I have their letters—who lost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and they come from all classes of annuitants and policyholders.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point.
	On being returned in 2010, I found myself a member of the Government and obliged, at one level, to support their decision to limit the compensation to £1.5 billion. At the time, as the Prisons Minister, and the prisons budget being rather less than the total compensation required, I could understand, in the circumstances, why they decided to limit the overall compensation. I resolved, however, to speak in this debate and to re-examine the letters I sent out defending the Government’s position, and to re-evaluate my position to see whether it was reasonable.
	I was much taken with the comments from the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the former Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. This is about confidence in the entire savings system. I can remember Labour’s first Budget in 1997 and the consequences—unreported from the Dispatch Box—of IR35, which saw £5 billion cheerfully lifted from investors in pension funds through a tax on dividends. If a £5 billion change can be made in a Budget, announced not in the House of Commons but by press release, we need to be aware that we are dealing with vast numbers when it comes to pension policy. I tell the Economic
	Secretary, who is replying to the debate, that I believe we are on the verge of a substantial—and, for me, very welcome—change in pension policy. As part of that, we need to acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West that this issue is about confidence in the system as well as fundamental fairness to our constituents.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who introduced the debate so effectively, on securing it. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on setting up the all-party group in 2006-07 to reinforce the efforts that were already under way. He attempted to corral those efforts, make them more effective and secure from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats an undertaking that the issue would be addressed in their manifestos leading into the 2010 election. It is important to highlight that as a simple issue of fairness we need to revisit the sum of £1.5 billion and decide whether or not we have discharged our duty.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is why these artificial divisions—between 31 August 1992 and 1 September 1992—are so unfair on the people involved. My constituent Derek Burton estimates his losses at around £175,000 as a consequence of his having invested before the cut-off date in 1992. That shows the impact on him of the changes that were subsequently made. These are enormous sums of money that have destroyed the planned retirements of thousands of my constituents—an average of 2,000 of every Member’s constituents have been affected.
	Frankly, we have to grasp this problem and address it. I hope it can be done through the Budget and through further substantial and welcome changes to pension policy, on which the Chancellor absolutely deserves our support. By those means, he can address this lingering unfairness so that people can be given the confidence to invest in pensions again. The lesson I took from my little episode with Equitable Life was that I was simply not going to undertake any extra investment in pension schemes thereafter.
	On the figures, I do not know whether we will get an answer from the Minister on whether £2.7 billion remains the sum required to put this right. In trying to do the mathematics, that figure does not seem to work out precisely to me, given that about £1 billion went to 890,472 policyholders who received only 22.4%. Provision should now be made for us to address this issue.
	Maladministration was recognised and a clear recommendation was eventually made by Ann Abraham in her report, after various other people had looked at the problem. I have a lingering sympathy for some of the Equitable Life administrators at the time. The original legal challenge to their policies always struck me as ludicrous. It lost at every conceivable stage until the last one, when there was no possible course of appeal. Provision had not been made, as it should have been, for the possibility that they might lose the action. That was how the maladministration came to be identified in all the reports.
	If we—the system—have overseen people not doing their job properly and not protected people who were wholly innocent, including those who were investors before 31 August 1992, it is right that we do our duty —out of fairness to them and to restore confidence in the whole pension system. If people find that they have invested resources other than their house in the biggest single asset they are going to invest in, and encountered circumstances utterly beyond their control, or utterly beyond any reasonable duty of care they would have taken to find out about what they were investing in; and given that Equitable Life was the most reputable pension provider around at that time, we need to put things right. We are now able to afford to compensate these people, and we should be able to do so by continuing significant pension reform to put this right properly and fully.

Antoinette Sandbach: I pay tribute to my predecessor, Stephen O’Brien, who fought tirelessly on behalf of Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate.
	The Minister may be surprised to know that some of my constituents who have received support from the compensation scheme have recognised the role of the coalition Government and want me to pass on their thanks to that Government for setting up the compensation scheme that has allowed them to salvage a little from the shipwreck that Equitable Life has in effect been. They fully recognise the good intentions of the last coalition Government in attempting to do something, when nothing had been done previously. I want to put that on the record.

Victoria Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the dignified yet forceful way in which EMAG has conducted itself—Mr David Wakerley in my constituency has been involved—shows the realistic view it has taken of what has been done so far, but this in no way addresses the needs of those left behind?

Antoinette Sandbach: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A constituent of mine who wrote to me has lost 75% of his life savings. He is living on a pittance by contrast with the position he would have been in if Equitable Life had not gone under. There is a broad recognition among Equitable Life policyholders of the stresses and strains that the last coalition Government faced, particularly with a severe economic crisis and a ballooning deficit.
	Of course, we are now seeing the impact of the long-term economic plan. When the Government were in difficulties and faced stark choices, I believe that my constituents recognised that and were grateful that the Government were willing to act. Now they can see that circumstances are changing, they are asking the Minister to keep this matter under review, as my hon. Friend the
	Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) suggested. We are in a different economic situation from that when this fund was originally set up.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, as indeed have others. I do not wish to be pedantic, but when we talk about “keeping the matter under review”, we must remember that pension holders are dying, which makes the matter very urgent. My hon. Friend is right to say that the economy has improved to the extent that the Government can afford to pay full compensation, but beyond that I think there is a moral duty. There was regulatory failure, so whether or not they can realistically afford it today or tomorrow, do the Government not have a duty to pay this money?

Antoinette Sandbach: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because his point about regulatory failure is absolutely key. Had the regulator been doing its job properly and effectively, we would not be in this situation. That is what lies behind the requests for fairness, justice and equity for the policyholders, who were entitled to believe that proper, appropriate and fit regulation was in place and would keep their policies safe. That is the inherent injustice about which those policyholders are rightly aggrieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has said, it is unarguable that the unspent £139 million must be distributed among the pre-1992 policyholders.

Chris Leslie: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s argument. I think that all Members want to find a constructive, positive approach. It occurs to me that a number of those who are not eligible for compensation might be falling on social security benefits, which, of course, is a cost to the taxpayer. Perhaps this is too difficult for us as individual Members, but I wonder whether it would be possible to do some modelling in order to see whether that accruing cost to the taxpayer would justify changing the compensation profile at this early stage. If we are trying to find ways to find money to improve the compensation offer, perhaps that would be an option.

Antoinette Sandbach: I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary has listened to the hon. Gentleman’s submission and I have no doubt that he will pay due regard to it. The Government have announced that payments to non-profit annuity policyholders who are on pension credit will be doubled, so some action has been taken, but we will not get to the heart of the unfairness until the regulatory failure has been properly addressed. That is what I am arguing for on behalf of my constituents.
	We know that there are difficult spending decisions to be made, but these people trusted the system and paid in, in good faith, over many years, only to find that there has been consistent, repeated and unwarranted failure of regulation, and that it was so bad that there was found to be maladministration. In such circumstances, our constituents should not be having to pay the price for the failure of Government.

David Mowat: My hon. Friend has mentioned difficult spending decisions—which is true, to an extent—and the £139 million, which has already been voted through by Parliament. It would be completely wrong for that not to be used for additional policyholders, if they can be found. Indeed, if it were not used for that purpose, it would represent a windfall for the Treasury in this fiscal year, which cannot be the right answer. I am as interested as my hon. Friend is to hear the Exchequer Secretary explain the plans for that £139 million.

Antoinette Sandbach: The Exchequer Secretary would be in danger of undoing all the good work the coalition Government did in setting up the fund in the first place if he were seen to be mealy-mouthed, if I may put it that way—I know he most certainly is not—and were to withhold those funds and to seek to bring them back into the Treasury, given the huge injustice suffered by the policyholders.
	I am not going to take up much more time, Minister, because I know that you have other Members to hear from. I urge you please to look at the settlement and at what you can do to support those who are in desperate straits, including constituents of mine, and to do the right thing.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind Members that they are speaking through the Chair, so when the hon. Lady says “you”, she is speaking directly to the Chair?

Peter Heaton-Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this incredibly important debate. In common with Members on both sides of the House, I have received a considerable amount of correspondence on the issue and met people in my surgeries who have been affected by it.
	Other Members have mentioned this, but I want to pay particular tribute to the Equitable Members Action Group, which has done extraordinary work to highlight the issue and to represent members who have suffered as a result of the unfairness. The group members are persistent, dogged and effective campaigners and lobbyists. I have had the pleasure of meeting the EMAG chairman who covers the whole of the south-west. He is an extraordinarily effective campaigner.
	As many Members have said, this is an issue of fairness. Policyholders who were doing the right thing and saving for the future have found themselves in an awful position. We need to take account of that. They have our sympathy, without doubt. Whatever solution we find, however, we also have to keep it in mind that we need to be fair to taxpayers as a whole. Although £2.6 billion is a considerable amount of money that would plug the gap and ensure that those who lost out are compensated in full for their losses, it does, none the less, place a burden—it is a big ask—on the taxpayer and the Treasury to find it. We need to be aware of that.
	I am glad that the Treasury has responded to a number of letters from me. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence back and forth. I am particularly happy to have received a letter from a Treasury Minister, which addresses the need and, indeed, the desire to keep the matter under review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) says, time is short, so I urge the Treasury not only to keep the matter under review, but to bear it in mind that, sadly, the passage of time means that it needs to be addressed quickly. The letter, which I received in response to a letter I wrote on behalf of the chairman of EMAG in the south-west, makes it clear that the Treasury welcomes submissions and ideas for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to include in the Budget statement. I am sure that the Treasury is taking account of all those submissions.
	It is worth bearing in mind that the Chancellor has already announced—and I am sure he will announce more—extremely welcome changes and reforms to the pension system. I hope we can look at the issue as part of that wider package of reforms.

Robin Walker: rose—

Crispin Blunt: rose—

Peter Heaton-Jones: I entirely agree. The Government have done a great deal to support savers and to support and encourage those who invest for the future, and have done a great deal for pensioners as well. That is undeniable. I hope that, as part of the package, there will be some movement on the issue, and that it will be kept under careful consideration.
	The letter that the Treasury Minister wrote to me in response to the letter that I wrote on behalf of the EMAG representatives in my constituency contains the welcome information that she is open to submissions in relation to the Budget. She also points out that the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report was published in 2008, and that—as we heard from the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir)—it is only since the Conservative-led coalition Government came to office in 2010 that any compensation has been paid. It is important to remember that this Government started the ball rolling.

George Kerevan: I appreciate everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there is clearly a difference between banks that have been mis-selling having to pay up for their misdeeds, and the Treasury, regardless of party—and the state, regardless of who are the Government of the day—paying for a regulatory failure. It is not a question of charity from a Government to the individuals who have suffered under Equitable Life. People suffer as a result of a regulatory failure, and therefore it is the Treasury’s duty to pay full compensation, just as it is the banks’ duty to pay full compensation to those who have suffered as a result of mis-selling.

Peter Heaton-Jones: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me return to a point that I made earlier. He refers to the Treasury paying compensation. The Treasury has no money; it is all taxpayers’ money. We need to strike a careful balance. There must be fairness, not only to Equitable Life policyholders but to taxpayers in general, because it is they who will ultimately have to foot the bill for any compensation.

Crispin Blunt: May I briefly make the point that there is a taxpayer interest here? If the savings culture is undermined, the taxpayers’ interests are absolutely at stake. We need people to invest in pensions to ensure that they are not dependent on the taxpayer in their retirement.

Peter Heaton-Jones: That is a good point, and I do not think that it is wholly at odds with the point that I was seeking to make.
	I shall not delay the House for much longer. We all recognise that Equitable Life policyholders have found themselves in an impossible position—and, again, I pay tribute to all the work that they have done—but it should also be recognised that asking the taxpayer to provide £2.6 billion of compensation, if that is indeed the figure, is a big ask. Let me say to the Minister that that I acknowledge that balance, and I hope that we can find a way along what is a difficult path. I welcome the Treasury’s assurance that it will entertain all submissions from Members of Parliament, members of EMAG and members of the public, and will keep the matter under careful consideration so that we can resolve it in a way that will satisfy both Equitable Life policyholders and the interests of the wider taxpayer.

Huw Merriman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for initiating the debate, and I have been asked by my constituents to thank him for everything that he has done on their behalf over the years.
	In 2010, when standing for election in North East Derbyshire, I engaged with many Equitable Life policyholders. They were your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, and they were full of praise for the work that you had done on their behalf. I added that to a lengthy list of reasons why you were returned and I was not. Having served my apprenticeship, I put some of those best practices to good effect when I was selected for the constituency of Bexhill and Battle, and was subsequently elected.
	All the constituents with whom I have interacted have put their positions with clarity and with understanding of the economic challenges that the Government face in balancing the books. Given that those people had planned to save so sensibly for their own retirement, it is clear that prudence and budget-planning were second nature to them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has responded to my numerous items of correspondence on this subject both in person and in writing. Her explanations, and the time that she has given to explaining, have helped me to communicate with my impacted constituents, and for that I am very grateful.
	As I interpret a recent letter from the Treasury, prompted by one of my constituents, I understand that the Government have closed the scheme to new compensation claims, and will reallocate unclaimed moneys remaining in the pool to policyholders who are receiving pension credit. I had understood the words
	“I am sorry to say that no changes to the funds allocated to the Scheme are planned”
	to mean that no new moneys would be added to the pool, and that the £1.5 billion paid out would be the final payment, in the light of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s direction that the Government should have regard to the impact on public finances. However, one of my more eagle-eyed constituent policyholders has read those words to mean that, while the manner in which the funds within the pool are to be allocated is fixed, that does not expressly rule out the possibility that new funds could be added to the pool, and go towards the £2.6 billion shortfall, during the current term.
	I should be grateful if the Minister would make clear whether any further funds for the pool are expressly ruled out for this term, so that I can pass on that clarification to my constituents. It may sound perverse, but many of them would accept that position, because they have reached a stage at which they would like to have absolute finality, and to know whether it makes sense for them to continue funding the fight.
	I also want to say something about the stated position for with-profits policyholders. The letter that I received from the Treasury states that they were compensated in full. I understand that the proxy value of the pensions of pre-1995 with-profits policyholders was calculated by virtue of a benchmark from the Prudential, which was considered to be a similar proxy for their own policies. However, I understand that in the case of post-1995 with-profits policyholders, the proxy value was calculated by the benchmarking of not only Prudential, but Scottish Widows. The appropriateness of the latter as a benchmark was disputed by some of my constituents on the grounds that it was a poorly performing policy. Those policyholders dispute the claim that they have received full value, and have drawn distinctions between their own policy and that of the Prudential, and the policy of Scottish Widows. I should like the Minister to tell me whether my understanding is correct. Perhaps he will also comment on why the Scottish Widows policy was seen as a fair benchmark for this exercise, if my contention is indeed along the right lines.
	I should add that I empathise hugely with all the policyholders who have been impacted by the losses to their policies. However, I am also conscious that this matter was determined before my election, and that I was elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver a budget surplus. Adding a further £2.6 billion would mean that other constituents of mine would have to provide for it. I have explained that difficult concept in person to my impacted constituents, because I believe in being direct when a resolution is unlikely to be arrived at, and I am indebted to them for the manner in which they have responded to my direct approach.

Huw Merriman: I was elected on the basis that there would indeed be a budget surplus. I think that it would be wrong of me to stand up and try to proclaim—this was mentioned earlier—that £2.6 billion could be found down the back of the sofa. If only it were that easy. I also believe in being direct and straight with my constituents, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am doing so now.
	I support the Government in their approach to this difficult issue. Let me end by asking the Minister, on behalf of my constituents, whether the funding of the scheme is indeed final for this term, and whether the use of the Scottish Widows policy benchmark was justifiable.

Ian Blackford: It is a pleasure to sum up the debate. I warmly thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and those who signed the motion. As has been pointed out, the wide-ranging all-party parliamentary group has 195 members from all parties, which demonstrates the interest hon. Members take in this matter. It was also said in the debate that, in each of our constituencies, there are around about 2,000 Equitable Life policyholders, which shows the scale of the problem we face and why we must take the matter seriously. I am delighted that we are having this debate today.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the outrageous scandal, which is exactly the point. He went on to talk about the perceptions of market risk—markets going up and down—and the promises that were given to Equitable Life policyholders. However, in the main, we are not only talking about promises, because Equitable Life gave guarantees to its policyholders. We ought to reflect on that point, particularly in the light of what he said in the debate about who knew within the company, the regulator and the Government. Ultimately, the Government must stand behind the regulator when there is market failure of the degree that took place with Equitable Life. That is their responsibility.
	The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) spoke at the tail-end of the debate. I say to him that everybody understands that all parties want a balanced budget, but we also have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the consumer interest. That is what we are talking about today. I ask the Minister to reflect on what was said by the hon. Member for Harrow East and others on looking for those who have pre-1992 annuities and considering what can be done for them.
	Two broad themes have been mentioned time and again in the debate: fairness, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones); and regulatory failure, which goes back to the Government’s ultimate responsibility, and which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach).
	The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made the point about the 2,000 members and the fact that all hon. Members are still getting letters from constituents. Many of my SNP colleagues have had them in the past few weeks.
	One of the most important points was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mike Weir) and others. We must have confidence in the financial markets. If we are not going to stand behind the policyholders in this case, that undermines the savings culture that we want. We want people to invest in pensions and know that there is consumer confidence problem. We must tackle that.
	I want to put this debate in the context of the good debate we had just a couple of weeks ago on the Financial Conduct Authority. One much-discussed theme was the importance of consumer protection and trust. On the back of scandals such as those involving Equitable Life policyholders, it is clear that many consumers are concerned about whether they can trust the providers of financial services products, whether they can trust the regulatory regime to protect them, and whether the Government will discharge their obligations to protect the consumer interest. The significance of that cannot be overstated.

Ian Blackford: I strongly agree. I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) commenting in the background—he made that same point in the debate, as did the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). There is unity in the House on wanting a savings culture. We want people to retire with decent pensionable income, but we will create that confidence only if we show that we are prepared to stand behind the Equitable Life consumers. They were let down by the company and the regulator, and the Government have that moral and ethical responsibility to step in. That should not be underestimated.

Ian Blackford: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman and am happy to associate myself with his comments. It is about creating that long-term stability in the financial services industry and ensuring that we have the right regulatory regime. We must have the right architecture for both private and public pension provision in this country. I hope all in the House have a shared interest in doing that. That is why the debate is so important, and why the Government must respond in the correct manner. How we deal with the long-running saga of Equitable Life is important in the context of his intervention.
	Let us remind ourselves of the background. Equitable Life was a major provider of with-profits pension plans. A minority of policyholders invested in policies that offered a guaranteed annuity rate. That rate was set below the normal historical rates, but towards the end of the 1980s, that “normal” changed. Increasingly, the guaranteed annuity rate was over-generous and ultimately unaffordable to Equitable Life in the long run. In response, Equitable stopped sales and reduced the capital value of the pension pots by reducing discretionary bonuses. Guaranteed annuity rates were thus maintained only because the capital sum was far lower than had been expected.
	Ultimately, GAR holders took legal action to stop Equitable from rigging pension payouts and won in the House of Lords in 2000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus mentioned in his speech. That judgment increased the financial burden on Equitable by about £1.5 billion, a sum that threatened its solvency. Equitable Life hoped to fill that gap by suspending distributions to policyholders and by selling the business, but it was unable to find a buyer. It ceased all further business and became a closed fund. It also had to reduce policy bonuses, and hence the ongoing pensions of investors. Pensions reductions of up to a third were common. It was a perfect storm.
	Policyholders have long tried for compensation. Two ombudsman reports concluded that there had been maladministration and that injustice had been suffered. We should remind ourselves of what was said in the second ombudsman report. The conclusion stated:
	“the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme, with a view to assessing the individual cases of those who have been affected by the events covered in this report and providing appropriate compensation.”
	I emphasise “appropriate compensation”.

Margaret Ferrier: I want to highlight the case of my constituent, Mary, an ex-machinist, and her husband, an ex-electrician’s mate. They worked all their lives contributing to our society and economy for decades and opted to invest a substantial amount of money in a scheme—an Equitable Life scheme. Due to years of negligence by the company and different Governments, the money was snatched away. Sadly, Mary’s husband passed away last year and she was given only a small amount of compensation. Her husband is not here to see justice being served. Surely we must act for Mary and other Marys across the UK?

Ian Blackford: I wholly concur with my hon. Friend and her constituent. Other Members have made the point that there is a sense that the Government must act quickly because the policyholders are dying. We have a responsibility to deal with the problem in a timely manner.
	I am conscious of time, so I will try to wrap up quickly. The 2008 report also stated that regulation was not implemented properly, meaning
	“consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected”.
	We understand that that involved previous Governments—the Minister will be pleased to hear that not even I would blame the current Government for this one—but we do have a responsibility to reflect on what has been said and what actions we should take as a consequence.
	All the parties involved accepted the ombudsman’s second report and accepted the case for compensation. During the inquiry, EMAG told the ombudsman that it had calculated the loss for those investing after 1990 at £3.2 billion if they remained with Equitable as against £4.6 billion if they had invested elsewhere. The final conclusion from the ombudsman states:
	“The government should establish and fund a compensation scheme. The aim of such a scheme would be to put those who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”
	We have all reflected on what the Government did with the £1.5 billion, but it is the issue of fairness that we keep coming back to.
	This has already been mentioned, but it is worth stating again that before the 2010 election, the main Equitable Life policyholders’ action group, EMAG, lobbied MPs to seek support for compensation for its members. Perhaps as a result, the 2010 Conservative manifesto included this brief comment:
	“We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”
	It has been said today that the Government could not go beyond the £1.5 billion because of the financial circumstances at the time. Let us take this opportunity today to right that wrong and to plug some of that gap. I appeal to the Government to listen to all the points that have been made across the Chamber today and to do the right thing for the policyholders of Equitable Life.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate today and on the articulate way in which he described the events that many of our constituents have faced. He touched on many of the issues that I will highlight in my speech. And of course it is always a pleasure to stand opposite the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
	I would also like to thank the various Members who have spoken today. I will not go through them one by one as I know we are pushed for time, but there were several emotional contributions that I would like to highlight. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) told the story of the lady in her constituency who lost £40,000 and got only £12,000 back. The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said that she had noticed a decline in the number of constituents visiting her to discuss this issue and that, sadly, it was because many of them had either passed away or given up hope.
	The fate of Equitable Life and those who invested in it has been debated in this House for more than 15 years by Members on both sides. I commend the work of the Equitable Members Action Group, which I will call EMAG for the sake of expediency. I would also like to thank the many Members of this House who have campaigned tirelessly on behalf of their constituents to ensure that this issue is not kicked into the long grass. It is difficult not to sympathise with the anguish and worry that many of those investors have experienced. Many have seen their nest eggs disintegrate, and they feel cheated. Over the years, it has become clear that, despite all the efforts to review the issue, there is no one universally agreed strategy to compensate them. It has therefore been difficult to establish a course of action that will truly put the matter to bed.
	Along with many other Members, I appreciate the action that the Government have taken to compensate those who were disproportionately affected by this sorry affair. However, as we have heard today, concerns remain about the management and assessment of compensation payments. More than 90% of Conservative Members in the last Parliament signed the following pledge:
	“I pledge to the voters of this constituency that if I am elected to Parliament at the next general election, I will support and vote for proper compensation for the victims of the Equitable Life scandal and I will support and vote to set up a swift, simple, transparent and fair payment scheme—independent of government, as recommended by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.”
	The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury signed that pledge to provide proper compensation for those affected by the events at Equitable Life. It would be helpful to ascertain whether the Minister feels that the pledge has been fully met today.
	The assessment of compensation payments—and the amount allocated by the Government—is not a simple matter. At the time of the second ombudsman’s report, EMAG estimated the losses incurred by policyholders investing after 1990 at £3.2 billion if they remained with Equitable Life and at £4.6 billion if they had invested elsewhere. In comparison, the 2010 Chadwick report assessed the loss at £500 million on the basis of assessing maladministration. There is therefore a clear difference between the principles used to calculate the EMAG estimates and those used to calculate the Chadwick estimates. All those figures are of course different from the £1.5 billion and the subsequent £500 million top-up offered by the Government. EMAG states that, according to its own calculations, the outstanding figure is between £2.6 billion and £2.8 billion.
	I should also like to address the administration of the scheme generally. The National Audit Office reported in 2013 that the scheme had faced a number of administrative issues. The NAO appreciated, as do I, that the task of setting up the scheme was a difficult challenge. It was a complex operation undertaken in quite a short period of time. However, it noted that the scheme had significant issues with tracing the identity of some policyholders, as the data provided by Equitable Life were out of date. Following the publication of the findings, the Public Accounts Committee undertook its own report into the administration of the scheme and concluded that the Treasury had
	“not used all information available to trace as many policyholders as possible”.
	In April 2013, the NAO reported that only 35% of payments had been made and the PAC quoted that the Treasury estimated that it may not trace 17% to 20% of policyholders. As of 30 December 2015, the scheme had issued payments to 915,453 policyholders, representing 88% of those eligible—only a slight improvement since the PAC’s critical findings. Given that the scheme closed for new claims on 31 December 2015, will the Minister tell us how many of the remaining 12% of eligible policyholders were found? At the time, it was also recommended that the Treasury and National Savings and Investments would
	“work with the Equitable Members’ Action Group to explore options for utilising data to contact policyholders who have not yet received payment”.
	Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that the recommendations of the PAC with regard to that were acted on and that all reasonable steps were taken to contact eligible policyholders?
	The NAO and the PAC also found that some policyholders were dissatisfied with the responses to their queries and complaints. They included policyholders receiving duplicate requests for the same information and generic responses in relation to specific queries. Will the Minister outline what steps were taken to ensure that customer service has improved since the reports and that it will remain at an adequate level for those policyholders who are still in receipt of annuity payments from the scheme?
	The next concern I wish to raise with the Minister is the amount of money it has cost to administer the payment scheme. National Savings and Investments, an executive agency of the Treasury, was tasked with operating the scheme. It originally outsourced to Siemens, whose contract was then bought by Atos. The PAC expressed concern in 2013 that the Treasury was not achieving value for money in the contract with Atos to deliver the scheme. The contract was based on time and materials, and it is argued that there was a vast amount of waste of taxpayers’ money as a result. The total budget for administering the scheme was set at £57 million. In 2013, National Savings and Investments estimated that the cost would go £4 million over budget. Will the Minister confirm whether the payment scheme was delivered on budget, and, if not, by how much it overspent?
	Finally, the PAC recommended that the Treasury undertake a lessons-learned exercise, as it felt the failures of previous Government compensation schemes had not been addressed when setting up the Equitable Life payment scheme. The Government accepted that recommendation and confirmed that they would produce two reports: one in November 2013; and a final report, to be shared with the PAC, the NAO and the Major Projects Authority in early 2016. Will the Minister take this opportunity to update the House on the progress of the second lessons-learned report?
	On the subject of lessons learned, it is, above all, incumbent on us to ensure that future such scandals do not take place. Will the Minister tell us, therefore, what measures the Government have put in place to stop this happening again? In particular, pension fund providers and their fund managers continue to resist calls for transparency of costs and performance, so are the Government taking any steps to ensure that they inform pension scheme members of the true costs of investing? What plans do the Government have to review the governance arrangements for pension funds? Will he confirm that governance committees are currently without a fiduciary duty to their members in contract-based pensions and have they given any consideration to changing that?
	It is clear that that although some progress has been made to address the anguish and loss caused by this matter, a number of questions remain. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Damian Hinds: This is an extremely important subject, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and bringing it to the Floor of the House today. His tireless work and that of other colleagues has been of great importance to many of our constituents. There are many human stories, and we have heard a number of them today from colleagues across the House. I am grateful to have the opportunity both to set out what this Government have done to address this long-standing issue and to set the record straight on some of the background.
	Equitable Life has been a very sorry tale, and we all share sympathy for those affected by it. As the motion notes, this Government have taken action to resolve the long-standing issue, which is something that previous Governments failed to do, as noted by my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones).
	Although Equitable Life remains a going concern and continues to trade, its problems in the 1990s and at the turn of the century caused a great many of its policyholders to suffer financial and emotional distress. Many different factors contributed to the losses suffered by policyholders. The ombudsman’s 2008 report established the part played by the then Government.
	When we came to government, we committed to implement the ombudsman’s recommendation that the Government should make payments to Equitable Life policyholders in recognition of the part that was played by the Government at the time. We took swift action, introducing the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill in 2010, with payments starting to be made to policyholders in June 2011, six months after the Bill received Royal Assent.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend knows that the thrust of this afternoon’s debate is a request for additional money to be made available on top of the money that has already been earmarked for compensation to Equitable Life policyholders. Will the Government be able to find additional money?

Damian Hinds: I will have to disappoint my hon. Friend, because the public finances remain in a very difficult state. Although the economy and our public finances have improved compared with where they were, money is still extremely tight.
	We established a set of rules for the payments, based on the Government’s full acceptance of the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings. The scheme was based on the assumption that all policyholders considered the incorrect regulatory returns when making their investment and would have decided not to invest in Equitable Life had those returns been correct. Obviously, those are quite conservative assumptions. The Government used the ombudsman’s findings to calculate the resulting individual loss by assessing the Equitable Life returns against those of comparator companies. That led to an assessment of the loss from Government maladministration of £4.1 billion.
	Despite the constraints facing the public purse, the 2010 spending review announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available for payment to eligible policyholders. Out of that sum, following consultation, we decided to pay the with-profits, or trapped, annuitants in full. As a result, this group of policyholders will receive an annual payment for life, and the actuarial assessment of those payments is that the Government will be making payments to this group well into the next decade and probably beyond.
	The total cost of those payments is assessed to be around £625 million—though that is dependent on how long policyholders live. Importantly, the £100 million contingency fund, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred, is an accounting provision to provide a safety net in case the annuitants live longer than the central forecast. The remaining £775 million of available funding was distributed pro-rata to other policyholders on the advice of an independent commission, and that resulted in a figure of 22.4 pence in the pound of their relative loss.
	Of course I know that that was deeply disappointing to many, but these were difficult decisions that were taken in the light of the position of the public finances. As I said just now in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), public finances remain in a very difficult position, and we have to take decisions in the interests of overall fairness to all taxpayers.

Margaret Ferrier: rose—

Margaret Ferrier: On that very point—

Margaret Ferrier: With the Government preparing to usher in the successor to the Trident nuclear weapon system, which is estimated to cost £167 billion, I call into question the Cabinet’s priorities. If the Government can find money for that, they can find money to pay Equitable Life policyholders.

Damian Hinds: The hon. Lady’s definition of “on that very point” has a degree of elastic in it.
	The motion notes that the ombudsman recommended in her report that policyholders should be put back in the position that they would have been in, had Government maladministration not occurred. What the ombudsman went on to say just after this recommendation, however, is that it was appropriate also to take into account the impact on the public purse when considering the funding of payments.

Damian Hinds: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make progress. I know there is another debate to follow and I am time-limited.
	The ombudsman has written to the all-party parliamentary group on the funding and said that the Government’s decisions on affordability and eligibility cannot be said to be incompatible with her report.
	As announced in the summer Budget, and following more than four years of operation, the scheme closed to new claims on 31 December. As part of that closure, we did find a way to double the payments received by investors who had previously received the 22.4% of their losses, but who were also in receipt of pension credit. These further payments started just before Christmas and will be completed shortly.
	There have been many representations regarding the group of policyholders known as the pre-92 annuitants. Although they were not included in the payment scheme for well-established reasons that have been debated on in this House, the Government recognised that they were not receiving the income they expected from their annuities. Although that is not due to Government maladministration, in late 2013, those policyholders received a payment of £5,000, or £10,000 for those in receipt of pension credit.
	The Government have also received representations about the fact that, as the economy improves, further funding should be made available to the payment scheme. The improvements our economy has made since 2010 are greatly to be welcomed and show that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working, but the plan is not complete and we have some way to go to fully restore the public finances. Based on latest outturn data, the deficit was £89.1 billion last year. This is why we have no plans to reopen the payment scheme after more than four years of operation. So apart from the ongoing payments to annuitants, which will continue for many years to come, our focus now is to complete the orderly wind-down of the scheme by summer this year.
	We do not yet know what the final picture will be, but we expect that by the summer, close to 950,000 policyholders will have been paid around £1.1 billion by the scheme. That is a considerable achievement, given the issues that the payment scheme faced in tracing policyholders, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who speaks for the Opposition, and exceeds the expectations set out in the National Audit Office report of 2013, to which she referred.
	I will respond briefly to a couple of points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East asked for a progress report on payments. As I said, we will know the final position on that by the summer and a report will then be published. We do not yet know the final position on the cash figures, but we expect the difference at the end to be lower than the £39 million that my hon. Friend referred to. The £100 million that I mentioned earlier, the contingency on the actuarial projections, is in a different category.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) asked for clarity, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in an intervention, on whether more money would be forthcoming. I wish I could say that was the case, but because of the condition of the public finances, that is not possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle also asked about the Scottish Widows benchmark. This is a complicated issue, but the core concept in the scheme was the concept of relative loss, which has to take a view of the investment’s performance, compared with similar investments available elsewhere. The Scottish Widows fund that he referred to was not available to invest in, I understand, before 1995, whereas the Prudential investment was.
	The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked whether the Treasury had taken all reasonable steps to trace policyholders. There was national advertising and various other tracing methods, including through the Department for Work and Pensions, and also a data list that came from EMAG with members’ details to help trace them. In terms of the spend on administering the scheme, our forecast outturn is within about 3% of the original budget.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) alluded to the contrast with savers in the Icelandic banks. Of course, that was a very different situation, where ex gratia payments were made to UK depositors in those banks. That was done as a result of a decision by the previous Government to guarantee all qualifying deposits when there was a danger of not having financial stability in the UK. However, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme was loaned the money to facilitate those payments, in the expectation that the money paid to UK depositors would come back from those banks eventually.
	A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of general confidence in financial institutions and encouragement to save. That is very important to the Government, who have helped more than 5 million people to save for retirement for the first time, or to save more, through automatic enrolment. Individuals now also have the freedom to access their pension from the age of 55 if they wish.
	The Government have also acted strongly on reforming financial regulation to ensure that it is fit for purpose in future. The Financial Services Act 2012 dismantled the failed tripartite system and created a new architecture and approach for financial regulation. I am confident that our actions have provided a robust framework for the authorities to work within.
	I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and other colleagues for securing the debate, which has given us another opportunity to discuss these important issues. I also recognise the hard work the all-party group has done.
	I appreciate that many policyholders are not receiving the income they expected, but by paying more than
	£1 billion to more than 900,000 policyholders, we have taken action to resolve the Government’s part in the Equitable Life issue. We have been able to pay in full the losses of the most trapped policyholders and to double the payments to vulnerable non-annuitant policyholders, as well as providing a one-off payment to the pre-1992 annuitants, who, though unaffected by the maladministration, were recognised by the Government to be suffering as a result of their declining annuity income. In doing that, we have balanced the needs of policyholders against the need to reduce the deficit and repair the public finances.

Bob Blackman: I thank hon. Members and all three Front-Bench speakers for the constructive and fair way in which the debate has been conducted. Almost 2% of the population have been affected by this scandal, and we have a duty to ensure that they are given full compensation for the loss they have suffered.
	I thank the Minister for laying out his argument, and I thank those who have contributed on the personal views of different constituents. I listened carefully to the Minister, and the Treasury accepts that the compensation bill for Equitable Life policyholders is £4.1 billion. Of that, £1.5 billion has been paid out, which leaves a balance of £2.6 billion.
	The Minister rightly said that compensation payments will be made well into the next decade for those who have suffered loss. It therefore seems reasonable to me and, I think, to Members across the House—the Chancellor will no doubt be listening to this—that as the economy recovers, our long-term economic plan comes to fruition and we reach a position where the budget is in balance, those who have saved for their retirement are given full and proper compensation.
	As the economy recovers, therefore, the Government can top up the scheme if they choose to, and I urge the Chancellor to pledge to do that in his Budget speech on 16 March. As we reform pensions in other ways, we can then send out the signal to young—and not so young—people that it is right to save for the future and for retirement and that if such a scandal were ever to happen again, the Government would step in to protect the retirement incomes of those who do the right thing and save for their old age.

Scott Mann: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the recent EU restrictions on recreational sea bass fishing are unfair and fail to address the real threat to the future viability of UK sea bass stocks; and calls on the Government to make representations within the Council of the EU on the reconsideration of the imposition of those restrictions.
	I thank the Backbench Committee for granting this very important debate. Let me place my cards firmly on the table: I am a recreational angler, and a very passionate one. I have cast from many a beach in Cornwall. I have fished with plugs and lures from rigid-hulled inflatable boats. I have regularly fished and ledgered on the Camel estuary and taken great pleasure in digging my own lugworms—big long trenches of lugworms—and ragworms. It is great to be on the coast looking out over Daymer bay and Padstow with the sun going down, the tide coming in and the lines dipping into the sea, waiting for that bite.

Charles Walker: Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend enjoys visiting The Art of Fishing in Wadebridge—one of the best tackle shops in the country, let alone Cornwall?

Scott Mann: That is a shameless plug, but it is a fantastic fishing shop, I have to say. The chap there has some very good fishing rods and tackle that can be purchased at very reasonable rates.
	I have set the scene for my fishing expeditions on the Camel. However, the situation this year is very different from that in previous years. For the first six months of this year, if I, as a recreational angler, caught a bass that was of legal size, I would not be allowed to keep it—I would have return it to the estuary—yet a commercial fishing boat that was netting on the estuary would be able to claim that fish and take it for the table.

Tim Loughton: As another MP with a coastline, may I ask my hon. Friend to acknowledge that not only are some 10,400 jobs dependent on sea angling, but there is a whole lot of leisure industry business that supports sea anglers—accommodation and everything else—with sea bass fishing being, of course, the most popular form of sea angling? An enormous business worth over £1.2 billion, it is estimated, lies behind this.

Jonathan Edwards: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on being so generous with his time. He mentioned Ireland. My understanding is that following the depletion of sea bass stocks in the ’60s and ’70s, Ireland banned commercial fishing and concentrated on the recreational side, which has expanded its tourism base. Despite the expansion and re-strengthening of the stock of sea bass, Ireland continues to ban commercial fishing.

Scott Mann: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I believe that Ireland relies solely on the recreational sector, but that has been of huge benefit to the tourism industry. In the spirit of the Opposition, I will read not from Jeff or Rosie but from Paul. Paul is a sea angler in north Cornwall who wrote to me:
	“After enjoying free and unfettered access to the inshore bass fishery for countless generations, it is understandable that many anglers feel aggrieved that they are suddenly having the right to take fish for the table so severely limited that in effect for many it will equate to zero.
	What is not in doubt is that bass stocks are in serious decline and most anglers agree that steps should be taken to…reverse this situation. Despite the assertion that the cause of the decline has little or nothing to do with angling pressure, most anglers are content to accept reasonable reductions in the number of fish they can retain. Hence the widespread, uncomplaining acceptance of the three fish ‘bag limit’ introduced for recreational sea anglers in September 2015.
	However, within the RSA community it was naively believed that the commercial sector would have been asked to make similar reductions in catch effort. No such drastic reduction in commercial effort was achieved. At this stage, many RSAs were both angry and perplexed”—

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend accept that the current proposals ban pelagic midwater trawling and impose a 1% bycatch limit on all mixed fisheries, including for fishermen who fish commercially from my hon. Friend’s constituency?

Scott Mann: I am aware of those regulations, but I am also aware that gillnetting and commercial fishing are still permitted in bass nursery areas.
	Paul continued in his letter:
	“The results of the negotiations are well known and in effect fall a long way short of the scientific recommendation…We call for an immediate review of the regulations in respect of the daily ‘bag limit’ for RSAs and a prompt correction of ill-judged legislation. It belies the intelligence of the EU commissioners not to recognise how illogical the rule is in its present form.”

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am delighted to be drawn into intervening by the hon. Gentleman. May I draw his attention to a 3-inch piece in a right-hand column in The Times about six months ago—a tiny little thing—which reported that the long-running battle to replenish cod in the North sea was being won? Cod stocks are growing bigger, as we can read in the press again today. North sea cod has been replenished because instead of cod wars we have agreements based on science to replenish the stocks. Those agreements are working.

Scott Mann: I will try to check out that column in The Times. It is not my regular newspaper—I normally read The Telegraph and The Sun—but I will go back and check it. Such agreements may be fine in other waters, but we should have an understanding that our territorial waters inside the 6-mile limit should be protected for our fisheries and our people.

Scott Mann: I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I agree that many fisheries people feel that that is the case.

Scott Mann: If our fishing boats have to go outside the 6-mile limit to catch fish, that surely shows that the fish are not actually within that limit and that fish stocks have been depleted over the years.
	Recreational sea anglers fully accept that fishery resources are finite and that there should be controls on their activities—minimum landing sizes, bag limits, seasonal closures—to protect this public resource from over-exploitation. The Council of Minister’s recent decision to prevent recreational fishers from taking any bass for the first six months of 2016, while sanctioning commercial fishing for bass for the first four months, is irrational. The decision is a symptom of a fisheries management regime that is broken and a common fisheries policy that is unfit for purpose. The EU has displayed utter contempt for our recreational sea anglers and those whose livelihoods depend on recreational sea angling.

Scott Mann: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Locally caught sea bass has a premium price. It can be sold in local restaurants, and local businesses can make a profit from it.
	I want to point out the madness of the current situation. Recreational sea anglers are members of the public who equip themselves with the tackle and knowledge necessary to access and enjoy public fishery resources. They selectively retain some fish for their own consumption, just as other members of the public enjoy Dartmoor, the New Forest or the Forest of Dean to forage for wild mushrooms, nuts and so on for their personal use. I believe that the EU is preventing our UK anglers from exercising their right—the right of our ancestors—to claim fish for the table, which is very wrong.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made an interesting point about tourism, something I want to comment on. The Invest in Fish project, which was funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was launched in 2004 and ran until 2007. It was a multi-stakeholder steering group that included fishermen, restaurants, fishing producers, merchants, recreational anglers and a number of other organisations. The objective was to examine ways in which fish stocks might be restored. In the south-west, it covered Bristol, Cornwall, Weymouth and Dorset.
	The project involved numerous work packages, one of which was a study of the demographics and economic impacts of recreational sea angling. I will give some of the figures. The south-west has 240,000 recreational anglers, who cumulatively spend £110 million on their pursuit. In addition, some 750,000 days are spent at sea and the visitor spend is about £55 million. Recreational sea angling across the south-west therefore generates a total of £165 million of expenditure on bait, clothes, charter boats, boat ownership, fees, travel and accommodation.
	Some places have recreational angling only, and I want to outline the benefits that that has brought. In the USA, the striped bass recreational fishery attracts anglers from all over the world and makes an estimated economic contribution to the country in excess of $2.5 billion. We must learn from the good practice in the USA and elsewhere, which delivers agreed resource sharing by species in line with fishery management advice, the best scientific evidence and economic objectives, as was said earlier.
	There are jurisdictions in the British Isles, such as Ireland, that have fishery management policies that operate in favour of the most sustainable forms of bass fishing and the conservation of stocks. Bass has been a recreation-only species since the 1990s in Ireland, as was illustrated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). That delivers an estimated €71 million to the Irish economy annually and supports 1,200 jobs. The Isle of Man is about to change the legislation covering sea bass to include a ban on all commercial bass fishing within 12 miles of the coast. Changes are happening around the world and we seem a bit slow to keep up.
	Many of the fishing ports of north Cornwall used to be utilised regularly for fishing. In Padstow, back in the ’80s and ’90s, many people used to sit around rodding and lining off the pier. We do not tend to see that as much nowadays.
	There are huge economic benefits to recreational angling. There are almost 900,000 recreational anglers in the UK and they pump £1.23 billion into the economy. There are almost 11,000 full-time jobs in sea angling alone. The “Sea Angling 2012” report found that the direct expenditure of sea anglers, after deductions, was £831 million. English anglers pay as much into the Treasury as the entire value of English fish landings, but receive no consideration in the reallocation of resources.

Scott Mann: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
	I will give two accounts from different parts of the sector before I wind up. The first is from a tour guide in the west country, who writes:
	“About to start the new fishing season with a great deal of concern and trepidation for the future of recreational angling and how it may affect my business. Prior to the new rulings regarding Bass, I had a full diary for the year ahead, due to the uncertainty of our weather patterns in this country, this has proved to be an economic necessity as we lose so many days.
	Now I find myself shielding daily emails from booked customers asking if the new rulings will apply to them, and would I consider turning a blind eye to the odd fish for the table as opposed to a cancellation!!!!”
	I do not want anglers to be criminalised—that seems ridiculous. He continues:
	“I consider myself as indeed are most of my customers to be conservation minded, but find these new rulings to be extremely harsh, especially when you consider that commercial fishing with rod and line and indeed netting will be allowed to continue within my ‘low pressure sector’. It is highly possible that I will be forcing anglers to return a fish right in front of a commercial line drifter”,
	which could then keep the fish that has been returned. He went on:
	“There is also the wider picture to consider, local cafes, tackle shops, bed and breakfasts”
	and all the people who rely on that sector.
	TV fisherman and bass guide Henry Gilbey—one of my personal favourite fishermen—stated:
	“I am a full time fishing writer and photographer with a ridiculous obsession for bass fishing. I live within walking distance of the sea in south east Cornwall yet I spend more than two months each year in Ireland. Why? Because the bass fishing is better. I run guided bass fishing trips and I need as many photographs of bass fishing as I can get, and I would love to be promoting bass fishing in Cornwall. But I can’t. My local bass fishing isn’t good enough. The fact is that to access really good bass fishing I need to travel away from my home in Cornwall and help promote Ireland as a sport fishing destination. We could have bass fishing like they have in Ireland though…but we don’t. We need more and bigger bass for anglers to catch, and this can only come about via better management of the stocks. Bass are the king of our saltwater species and anglers want to catch them.”
	They are simply being denied.

Scott Mann: I will not give way because I want to make progress.
	To conclude I will quote from John Buchan who said:
	“The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope.”
	I do not want to take that hope away from our recreational sea angling community, and I urge the Government to do a few things. First, will they review this decision and reverse the unnecessary catch-and-release policy for recreational sea anglers? Will DEFRA consider making a study of how much benefit rod-and-line angling produces for British tourism industries, and will it consider a complete ban of gillnetting in bass nursery areas? I look forward to hearing the views of other hon. Members, and I hope to sum up the debate at the end.

Jon Cruddas: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who made a brilliant speech, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I also welcome him to the all-party group on angling, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). I look forward to some pleasant days out.
	I am a terrible fisherman, so restraints such as the 42 cm landing size, the one-fish-per-day limit, or the moratorium will not affect me because I do not actually catch anything. However, I have great affection for the recreational angling community, and this is a great opportunity to debate the issue. I do not think we have discussed recreational fishing since December 2014, when the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) secured an Adjournment debate on bass fishing. After that debate we were optimistic about the future direction of travel of Government policy, but I am afraid we stand here today pretty disappointed about where we have got to.
	Angling is one of the highest participant recreational sports across Havering, Barking and Dagenham, and in the country at large. If we joined conversations in recreational angling chatrooms, and talked to people from the Angling Trust and the Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society, we would quickly appreciate the concerns across the country. Anglers are desperate to help to rebuild bass stocks in a fair, efficient and proportionate way, and we were looking forward to making real progress at the December Council of Ministers meeting.
	The basic problem now is that the recreational angler feels singled out and that EU fishing Ministers have unfairly targeted them in the new six-month moratorium. That moratorium risks criminalising thousands of law-abiding people, and it will be difficult to enforce without the active support of angling clubs, anglers and the Angling Trust.
	Evidence suggests that charter boat bookings are already down, which will impact on tourism revenues and potentially put some operators out of business. Anglers fishing from April to June will have to return all their bass, yet a commercial boat can come alongside and catch and kill the same fish. Ministers have boasted that these supposed conservation measures will have little effect on commercial inshore bass fishing, while also claiming that they have secured a good deal for bass stocks. Those statements cannot both be true. We therefore need to find out what the actual Government position is.
	DEFRA’s own “Sea Angling 2012” report shows that there are 884,000 sea anglers in England, who directly pump some £1.23 billion per annum into our economy. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned, bass are the most popular recreational species, and bass angling is worth some £200 million in England alone. Let us cut to the chase: for the past decade and a half, recreational sea anglers have been led to believe that their most popular sporting fish would be managed sustainably and be acknowledged as a valued recreational species. Why is that? It is because politicians of all parties have told them so.
	In 2002, the Prime Minister’s strategy unit commissioned a report on the benefits of recreational sea angling. That report, “Net Benefits”, was eventually published in 2004, and it said:
	“Fisheries management policy should recognise that sea angling may…provide a better return on the use of some resources than commercial exploitation.”
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on “Net Benefits” said:
	“We support the re-designation of certain species for recreational use and recognise the benefits that this can bring from both a conservation and economic point of view.”
	In the 2014 debate, the hon. Member for Meon Valley, who is now a Minister, concluded his speech by saying this:
	“does the Minister agree that the development of sea bass fishing as a recreational activity is the best long-term solution to both the ecological and the economic sustainability of the fishery, as proved by the Irish sea bass experience, the striped bass fishery of the north-east coast of the US and many other examples?”—[Official Report, 3 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 119WH.]
	Today, we ask the same question: what is the Government’s policy? We ask that as the derogations drive policy in the opposite direction to that argued for by the hon. Gentleman and the Government report in 2004.
	Do not get me wrong, I am not attempting to make a party political point about this. For example, under the last Labour Government, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), tried to increase the minimum landing size to 42 cm, but he was replaced by a new Minister who caved in to the commercial lobbying and annulled the statutory instrument that would have delivered this important conservation measure. My right hon. Friend was actively supported in those attempts to introduce that minimum landing size by the then Member for Reading, West, who, sadly, is no longer an MP, even though he is very much active in the Angling Trust and continues to lobby on behalf of recreational anglers.
	There is a recurring theme throughout the past 20 years, whereby the ecological case has been consistently put by the recreational side, backed up by Government reports and all-party groups, and this has been accompanied by limited actions of Governments of various persuasions, given pressures from the commercial side. Here we are again today making the same points and trying to give voice to the recreational angling community.
	In Ireland, bass has been designated a recreational species since 1990, delivering an estimated €71 million to the Irish economy annually and supporting more than 1,200 jobs. Ireland is also in the EU. The Isle of Man is about to embark on a similar policy. As well as highlighting the ridiculous anomalies with the current situation and the unfair treatment of recreational anglers, this debate today is really about trying to find out the longer-term thinking of the Government, so we do not have to return to this question again and again, whoever is in power.

Geoffrey Cox: I am not a recreational angler, but I have every intention of taking it up. It sounds an immensely enjoyable pastime and one in which all Members of Parliament should partake. I do, however, have an inshore fishing fleet to speak up for, and I have to say that one thing I am depressed about as a result of reading some of the briefings for this debate is the tone that is taken towards decent inshore commercial fishermen. These are men and women who have families to support. They are not large concerns. Having clung to a traditional fishing industry, in places such as Appledore, Bideford and Clovelly, they have found the rug gradually pulled out from under their feet.
	I agree with my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas). We are dealing here with an insane, illogical, irrational, fatuous policy. It is absolutely crazy that anglers cannot take two or three fish home for the table, when, at the same time, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has obtained derogations that allow netting to continue. Of course on the face of it, if we take the one, it is strange we do not take the other, but I propose a reason to the House. Ministers know, when negotiating in Brussels with their counterparts in other countries, that if they take away bass from the inshore fishing fleet, they will have nothing left to catch. In the north Devon industry, which I represent, they cannot catch spurdog; there is no cod, plaice or sole; no thornback ray; no blonde ray; and now there is a ban on small-eyed ray, which represents 40% of the take for the northern Devon fishing industry. Fishermen say to me, “What do we catch?”

Geoffrey Cox: I do agree. The policy is crazy, and Ministers know it. They wrestle with their consciences, they feel guilty and they try to push the envelope for the inshore fleet, but they know that the situation is untenable. They know that decent men and women with livelihoods to protect cannot go to sea for more than a few days a year and cannot cover their costs. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). Of course the position is crazy. It is an insane policy.
	Of course the rod-and-line sea anglers must feel a sense of injustice. It is a direct and perverse consequence of a failed policy. That is the difficulty. How do I go back to Bideford and Appledore and say to my fishermen, “There’s nothing for you to catch”? Catching small-eyed ray, the last thing on which they depended, was banned in December. Why do we think my hon. Friend the Minister came back with derogations for gillnetting? It was because he knew that the small-eyed ray was banned, which meant 40% of the northern Devon fishing industry cut at a slice. Was there any consultation on that ban? No. Was there any warning? No.
	The real injustice is the whole failed policy. It is time we got out of it. The people of this country will have the chance to withdraw us from it in just a few months. Then we can have a properly managed fishery in which the rod-and-line men and the sea anglers can be treated properly, and the inshore fleet, on which traditional coastal communities depend, can breathe again when we introduce common sense back into the counsels of our fishing policy.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Madeleine Moon: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! What are the Government doing risking Europe’s sea bass for their foolish, unfair, ineffective and fishy decision on sea bass fishing? Members might ask what I am doing here out of my darkened room—it is nothing to do with defence; I do not eat fish; and I am not an angler. Thanks to 40 years of living with an ecologist, however, I know an environmental disaster when I see one.
	I have constituents who are sea anglers who came to my surgery and asked me to take an interest in sea bass fishing. Unfortunately for me, I happen to know the former Member for Reading, and when someone knows the former Member for Reading, it is very dangerous to ask him, “What is the issue about sea bass fishing?” because he will tell them.

Huw Irranca-Davies: You shouldn’t have done that!

Madeleine Moon: I appreciate the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—I should never have done it, but my constituents wanted to know, so I wanted to know, and thus I am here today. I am also a Member who has a coastal resort, in which sea bass fishing was a very popular activity, so I started looking at the facts.
	Everywhere I looked, it was very clear that there was an urgent need to rebuild bass stocks—and nobody seems to dispute that. It is the core bottom line. It is an environmental and economic imperative, and everybody will agree on that. We know this because in 2014, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas recommended an 80% cut in bass mortality across the EU area for 2015, following a rise in bass landings from 772 tonnes to 1,004 tonnes. We were taking more out of the sea than was sustainable. The bass stock in the North Atlantic fishery is 527 tonnes—well below the trigger point of concern for the exploration of the seas, which was set at 8,000 tonnes. Future regenerations of sea bass stocks are now in danger.

Madeleine Moon: No, I would like to make some progress.
	During the run-up to the December meeting, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and
	Redruth (George Eustice) who is responsible for farming, food and the marine environment, was lobbied from all sides, but from everything I have seen and all the evidence sent to me, preference seems to have been given to commercial lobbyists. I am told that recreational anglers were granted a 30-minute telephone conference call with the Minister, whereas commercial lobbyists seem to have been in contact with UK Ministers and officials throughout the negotiations. Members will be aware that if we are going to carry out a consultation, it needs to be open, honest and not biased towards an already decided outcome.
	I believe that the initial proposals were well received by all sides, but particularly by recreational anglers. There was to be a complete ban on recreational and commercial fishing, including catch and release, in the first half of 2016; then, in the second half of 2016, a monthly 1-tonne catch limit for vessels targeting sea bass and a one fish per day limit for recreational anglers and the reintroduction of catch and release.

Antoinette Sandbach: rose—

Madeleine Moon: I have already said no.
	After lengthy conversations with the commercial sector throughout the negotiation period, EU Fisheries Ministers granted a surprise, namely a four-month exemption for commercial hook-and-line bass gillnet fishing, which accounts for 50% of bass fishing. The strict ban on recreational fishing will remain in place, and the monthly catch limit for commercial vessels has been increased from 1 tonne to 1.3 tonnes. Those outside this place who have never had the joy of seeing a gillnet should be made aware that it leads to the violation of EU fish-size regulations by allowing for the catch of undersized fish, which are then thrown overboard dead. They do not help conserve fish stocks, because the undersized fish—the next generation of fish—are thrown back dead.
	I do not usually quote Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph, but I agree with him that the EU is using a
	“sledgehammer to miss a nut.”
	Yet the regulation is endorsed and supported by this Government.
	I may not be an angler, but I know nonsense when I hear it. The EU Fisheries Ministers, in conjunction with UK Ministers, are talking nonsense when they try to spin this fix-up as a considered and environmentally sound policy. They falsely claim that bass gillnet fishing has a minimal environmental impact; that the measures are beneficial both for the commercial fishing sector and for bass stocks; that, because drift netting has been caught by the moratorium, bass stocks will increase; and that drifting accounts for 90% of all bass fishing.
	We need to know where the Minister got that 90% statistic from, because it is misleading and contradicts data published by the Government’s own Marine Management Organisation, which in 2014 stated that netting constitutes 62% of all commercial bass catches, with drifting responsible for only 20%.
	How can this Government possible justify increasing conservation-damaging gillnetting, yet ban recreational angling? I had thought that the Minister had mistyped the policy and that he in fact intended to ban gillnetting and to increase angling, but that was not the case. Recreational angling represents the sustainable future of bass fishing and it should not be banned.
	The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—

Charles Walker: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government negotiated a stunningly bad deal. I cannot think of a worse deal that they could have come back with for recreational bass fishermen in this country. It is no good beating around the bush.
	I make no apology for enjoying visiting the website of the Art of Fishing in Wadebridge. I have never visited the shop, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) will send the team my regards when he sees them this or some future weekend.
	Why was the Government’s deal so stunningly bad? They have come back and trumpeted a six-month closure. That sounds like pretty good news, until we realise that they have negotiated a four-month derogation for gillnets and hook and liners. Over the next 10 months, each of the boats will be allowed to take up to 1.3 tonnes a month—in other words, 1,300 fish a month, or 13,000 fish a year. Indeed, it is a 1 tonne increase on what they could take last year.
	Let us be clear: anglers account for less than 10% of the bass killed and taken out of this country’s waters, yet the value of recreational bass fishing is estimated to be £200 million to the economy, while the figure for bass stocks landed by commercial fishermen is an estimated £7 million.

Charles Walker: Only in the strange world of the European Union can a few thousand blokes with fishing rods—well, a hundred thousand-plus blokes—

Charles Walker: And ladies—account for 25% or 30% of all the hundreds of thousands, the millions, of bass that are taken. There they are, those recreational anglers, filling up their wheelbarrows and taking them down the high streets of our fishing communities! What a load of rubbish that is. It defies belief that organisations that pretend to be serious expect us to swallow such utter nonsense.
	Let us be clear about this. The value of a bass on the dock is about £3.50. The value of that same bass to recreational angling is about £100. It is worth 28 times more to recreational anglers than it is dead on the slab, going to market.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my hon. Friend—my very good hon. Friend, whom I have known for many years—for giving way. Do we not need to ensure that a bass stock is available? That is key, because if there are no bass, there will be nothing for anyone to fish for.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point, although I do not think that the proposals that were negotiated, or agreed to, by the Government take us any nearer to that stage.
	As I was saying, there are very few fish left in the sea for inshore commercial fishermen to target, and once they have finished with the bass, there will be nothing left. So here is the opportunity: let us create a recreational bass fishery that is the envy of the western world. In 1984, it was decided in the United States, on the east-coast Atlantic seaboard, that the inshore striped bass fishery would be recreational only. That fishery is now worth $2.5 billion to the economy, as people from around the world travel there, booking charters and staying in hotels in order to go out and catch those wonderful fish.
	This is the opportunity that remains open to our coastal communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, it has been seized in Ireland, and that recreational fishery is now worth £71 million a year to the entire Irish economy.

Charles Walker: I think that, during his speech, my hon. and learned Friend unwittingly invited my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall and me to join him for a bit of fishing. We shall be able to introduce him to the delights of recreational angling, and that fishing shop will be the first place that we visit after breakfast, at 9.30 in the morning.
	But I want to be serious about this. There is a huge opportunity here. As I have said, the value of recreational fishing—bass fishing—to the Republic of Ireland’s economy is £71 million. The value of the entire commercial catch of bass in this country is £7 million. I put to my hon. Friends representing fishing communities that the real prize, the real money and the real future for their inshore commercial bass fishermen is being at the forefront of creating recreational fisheries. There is a laboratory—a live case study. We can forget Ireland and the USA because they are established and thriving. The Isle of
	Man has decided to pursue that route to create jobs for charter captains and fishing guides, and jobs in hotels and restaurants. That is the opportunity that presents itself.

Charles Walker: I wish the Prime Minister would be more bullish when he comes to defend fishing interests. I remember fishing with the hon. Gentleman in Shetland. He was sitting on the side of a beautiful loch as it neared midnight on about 8 July. He said, “Charles, why are you using a fly and not a worm?” I leave him to justify his position in that matter with his own constituents.
	Let us not make this a row between recreational fishermen and inshore fishermen, who have also had a pretty rough deal. Without threatening jobs, could we start to think collectively about creating a new opportunity for what remains of our inshore fleet to thrive and prosper, and about having a sustainable fishery and not one that is here today, gone tomorrow? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon made clear, many fisheries around his coast have been here today and gone tomorrow, and they are now in the last chance saloon.
	I have spoken for longer than I thought I would, and I took a couple of interventions, which I greatly enjoyed, but be in no doubt that the Government will continue to be harried and harassed on this matter, because there is no other word to describe their dealings in the European Union but failure.

Sheryll Murray: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate.
	Bass tastes great served at a dinner party or a simple supper. My mother had a very special way of cooking bass that was caught with a rod and line at Queener Point off Rame Head near my home. Bass has always been a highly prized fish. Some people dream of winning the lottery. My late husband Neil—my late, fantastic commercial fisherman—dreamt of catching a bag of bass.
	I am here to talk about all fishermen, not just recreational sea anglers and not just commercial men. In addition to recreational sea anglers, two other groups are affected by such terrible measures: trip boats that work out of Looe and Polperro, taking groups of anglers out to sea with fish with rods and lines; and commercial fishermen who trawl or net for a living. Recreational sea anglers spend their leisure time fishing for hours, and it is only right that, when they get a bite and reel in their catch of bass, they can take it home for their supper. Recreational fishing is a very popular pastime for locals and visitors alike. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, it is estimated that landings of recreational bass account for about 25% of the total. I have heard that the European Commission is challenging the UK because it is not recording the landings of bass in a reasonable way.
	Cornish mackerel handline vessels often use charter trips as a way of ensuring that they have an economically sustainable business. Commercial vessels from the south-west rely on bass in the winter months. To presume that they can make up the economic loss with other species shows a complete lack of understanding of the commercial fishing industry and its seasonal nature. It is essential to have joined-up fisheries management for all fishermen, and restrictions must look at the socioeconomic impact on coastal communities. Recreational fishermen provide support for tourism, and commercial vessels provide support for harbour repairs and local infrastructure.
	In 2006, the Labour Government announced that the minimum landing size for bass would be increased from 36 cm to 45 cm. This was to apply only to UK vessels operating within the 12-mile limit. Labour reconsidered, however, and announced in October 2007 that the minimum landing size for bass would remain at 36 cm. The December 2014 Fisheries Council could not agree on bass conservation measures. The Angling Trust expressed its disappointment and called for domestic measures in UK waters, including raising the minimum landing size to 45 cm, strengthening the UK’s network of bass nursery areas, moving away from netting towards line-caught methods and limiting the catch per commercial boat. There was no mention of bag limits, I hasten to add. The Angling Trust should be careful what it wishes for when the European Commission is involved.
	I am sure that the UK’s request for emergency measures on 19 December 2014 was made for genuine reasons, and all fishermen accepted that some conservation measures were necessary. Those emergency measures included a three-fish bag limit for anglers, and 18 kg a day limit for demersal boats—which was workable—and a ban on mid-water trawls until the end of April, which was accepted because that was the time at which the fish were spawning. In September 2015, the minimum landing size was increased to 42 cm, which was a sensible conservation measure. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea published advice on 30 June 2015, before an assessment of those emergency measures. Its paper acknowledges that there were uncertainties in the assessment due to inaccuracies in historical landings.
	To maintain a sustainable fishing industry—I include recreational sea angling in that description—I propose that in the short term our Minister immediately asks the European Commission to revert to those emergency measures, so that we can make a real assessment of the bass stock. I also propose that the bycatch for demersal trawlers should be increased from 1% to a workable 5%, because discarded bass do not survive. What is the point of throwing this stock back into the sea dead when it is not covered by the European landing obligation? Discarded bass would have a very low survival rate.

Sheryll Murray: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I have seen how the industry and fishermen are affected by changes to the rules, and to introduce such a measure so quickly when it costs a lot of money to invest in gear is simply nonsensical.
	I acknowledge that the Minister may need to ask the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to me on this matter, but will he please reveal why the ban on drift netting was not announced until after the Council meeting, and not at the end of the debrief with the industry? I am sure he did not intend to allow fishing representatives to believe that all static net fishing had an exemption.
	This is a clear example of how the common fisheries policy has destroyed fishermen. The draconian CFP has caused fishermen from Looe and elsewhere to fish alongside French boats in the south-west 12-mile limit, and see those boats land about 10 times more haddock. Our fishermen have sent me images of their charts showing French fishing vessels inside our six-mile limit, while their path and speed suggests that they were actually fishing. To take this forward to prosecution under the CFP, the UK would need evidence of the gear in the water or confirmation from the fishery protection vessel.
	I understand that the 2016 herring quota has been exhausted already and we are only in February. Sprat and Cornish pilchard boats cannot avoid catching herring and they are subject to the pelagic landing obligation. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) to talk about that, because it is really important to our fishing industry?
	Enough is enough. Fishermen are fed up. The UK has to get control of our 200-mile median line, so that our Fisheries Minister is able to make the rules without going cap in hand to the European Commission.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will try to be quick so that others can speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope Members will understand if I do not take interventions. I have been tempted into making some points. There have been some very good speeches by Members who know a lot more about the fishing industry than I do, but my opening point is that the Europe issue is a red herring.
	Even if we had control of our own waters, we would have to have the right conservation measures to balance conservation with the survival of fisheries. We would have to do that come what may. I alluded earlier to North sea cod. Even if we had not been part of the common fisheries policy, and even if I had not been the Minister who started the trend for bringing back devolution of decision making on the North sea alongside Scottish colleagues and others, we would still have had to have made that decision for the good of our fisheries in the long term. We need the focus to be on the conservation of stocks, which is, ultimately, good for recreational fishermen and commercial fisheries.
	The Minister has a very difficult task. When he goes to Brussels, he argues for the UK—it is not as though we do not have a voice, and he is there alongside colleagues from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—and he has to do a difficult thing: he has to represent fishing communities while taking account of the science. Yes, I understand that that is difficult, but my question to the Minister is why is the decision on bass such a departure from the science? That is the fundamental question. I understand the difficulties he has when he goes to Europe, but there is such a difference between what ICES and the science clearly says—science is never perfect, but it is pretty good to go on—and what the Government have come up with. That is what we need to hear today. This issue is not between recreational anglers and commercial fisheries—or it should not be, although sometimes it seems to descend into that—but about the balance between using the science effectively in negotiations and keeping the fisheries alive.
	The fundamental question in my very short contribution is this: why is there a chasm between the science and the final outcome of the December fisheries negotiations on bass? The joy of the North sea cod result was that we had to strike a balance for more than a decade and we did it. Yes, fishermen were not happy, but they are a lot happier now that the cod is recovering and that they have bigger fish to land in their vessels. We need to do the same with bass and all other species as well.
	The question that I leave the Minister is this: why is there such a gap? I have experienced the difficulties of fisheries negotiations, but he must understand that there is a chasm between what the science was telling him and the outcome. Is it because there was a huge pressure from the fisheries communities and the Minister gave way? I have certainly been faced with the situation in which we almost had to close fisheries off the west of Scotland and off north-east Ireland. We managed to pull away from that, but it was difficult. There is such a chasm now that I must ask whether the Minister has just dispelled the science and let rip.

Kevin Foster: I shall be brief. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Being on the Backbench Business Committee, I learned a lot about seabass reproduction, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) regaled us all with the reasons why we should have this debate.
	I am grateful to my constituent Chris Packer who wrote to me yesterday setting out the impact in Torbay, where there are about 3,000 recreational anglers. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), is one of the most beautiful coastal parts of the whole country and has a thriving seafood industry, as well as a commercial fishery. I have the waters of Brixham harbour in my constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has the harbour itself in hers, so there is a strong interest.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that the question whether this is a “leave” or “remain” debate is a red herring. Whatever our position in relation to the European Union, we will need to have an agreement with other nations.

Sheryll Murray: rose—

Suella Fernandes: I speak on behalf of the small-scale coastal fishing community in my constituency, based on the River Hamble in Warsash, which has been fishing the Solent for centuries. Records from 1235 show that herring, cod, plaice, sole and bass were once in plentiful supply. The Prior of Hamble used to send 20,000 oysters to the monks at Winchester every year.
	Today the local fishermen own small inshore fishing vessels, which I recently visited. They use a rod and line, and long lines to catch bass. Their families have been fishing the Solent for generations, but life is hard for them. They do not fish for recreation, but to earn a living. However, after taking account of their running expenses and the hours they work, they do not even earn the minimum wage. Now, they face destruction as a result of the six-month ban on bass fishing, the changes to quota sizes and the increase in the minimum landing size. They are a community on the verge of total collapse.
	How did we get here? The quotas at the heart of the common fisheries policy have excessively affected British fishermen. Why our Fisheries Department ever allocated 96% of all quotas, no one can understand. The small-scale under and over-10-metre vessels received only a derisory 4% of the quota.
	The common fisheries policy has caused the absurdity of discards. Healthy fish are thrown back into the sea, skewing the natural relationship between man and sea. For all of time, man has harvested the riches of the ocean harmoniously and intuitively. Then, the European Commission constructed a system so bizarre that it gave rise to the problem we face today: depleting stocks of fish. Instead of enabling the natural equilibrium, we have now imposed artificial, heavy-handed management measures and quotas. These have been in place for the whole of my life, and they are now causing our fishermen to catch and throw back fish that could otherwise feed people.
	Let us consider cod stock. Once it was a staple of the British diet, but it was nigh on driven to annihilation. The huge total allowable catch reductions and the savage days-at-sea restrictions were big mistakes. At worst that meant that in the North sea, one cod would be discarded for every cod retained on board. That is at odds with all we do by experience, and it is injurious to the health of our oceans.
	The common fisheries policy, for that is what I am describing, is one example of how pan-European interference can change—no, distort—what was previously a perfectly healthy model. The policy has been driven by a Commission addicted to drastic measures characterised by clumsy and blundering legislation. Bass now faces the same fate as cod stock. This knee-jerk moratorium on fishing for bass will kill off the fishing community in my constituency.
	Set in the local context, the ban is too stringent. The Solent already has many restrictions as a result of UK and European protection designations. In Southampton Water, we have one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, with fish stock nurseries and other obstacles for fishermen to navigate. That has made it impossible for them to fish alternatives, such as mullet and sole, which might otherwise make up quotas if bass is limited.
	This small-scale, sustainable industry is suffering as a result of attempts to prevent overfishing by large-scale industry trawlers further out to sea in the channel. Those in the industry are receiving no compensation for their loss of income or to buy new equipment. They have nowhere else to turn.
	It is not easy to reach agreement on matters to do with the European Union—something we are all very aware of at the moment. Although I will not stray into wider EU issues now, I can say that the way the Warsash fishermen will vote in the EU referendum is clear for all to see.
	Lastly, I do not profess to match the expertise of those of my constituents who live, breath and work in the sector, but I ask whether extra measures can be taken to protect them from being annihilated by this deal. That would avert massive unemployment. Declining fish stocks will destroy our fishing industry. That will cost us fish and fishermen. As the precious stone set in the silver sea, Britain deserves more.

Michael Weir: I am glad to be able to say a few words in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on his entertaining and energetic opening speech. He is clearly an enthusiastic angler. I have to say that although my late father was an angler, I have never cast a rod in anger myself. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s advertising for The Art of Fishing in Wadebridge—he was egged on by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker)—will stand him in good stead with his local communities.
	As many Members have said, it is unfortunate that we have got to a stage where there is a dispute between recreational and commercial fishing, because that is in nobody’s interest. We must remember that this has happened because of the scientific evidence on depletion of the stocks. The situation is not new. It goes back to 2013, when ICES advised a 36% cut and was ignored, and then, in June 2014, recommended an 80% cut in bass mortality for that year. As a result, the stock has been in decline, and now these draconian measures are being brought in.
	Sea bass is an important stock for recreational and commercial interests in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) rightly said, the reformed common fisheries policy now has a regionalisation element, and the Scottish Government do have some powers in this regard. In fact, they are now putting in place conservation areas, and they have introduced the Wild Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Scottish Parliament. We have a great many interests in angling and deeper-sea fishing. On the estuary at Montrose in my constituency, there is salmon fishing, which is also relevant. There are disputes between the commercial salmon fishers at the estuary mouth and those who angle further up the river for these important fish. We have fishing in many of our rivers—the Tay, the Spey and many others. That brings in a great deal of tourism, and thus a great deal of money to the Scottish economy. It is calculated that while fishing brings about £500 million to our economy, aquaculture overall brings in about £1.86 billion, so it is a very important aspect.

Antoinette Sandbach: rose—

Michael Weir: If the hon. Lady does not mind, I really want to get on.
	It is important that we do not get into a dispute between the two sides. I appreciate that anglers are very angry about some things, but we must also think of the needs of the commercial fishermen—the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) made an excellent point about that. It is about balancing these needs to get to a stage where both sets of interests are represented. I am sure that we can do that, but it needs a bit less megaphone diplomacy between the two sides and a bit more getting together and seeing how we can co-operate to ensure that we are not destroying our inshore fishing fleets.
	The issue of pulling out of the EU is perhaps a red herring—no pun intended. The Minister will still have to make these difficult decisions, whether within the confines of reform of the common fisheries policy or in the context of UK-only policy. It is no easier either way when he has to look at the scientific evidence. The EU argument should not be relied on in this.
	I grew up in the town of Arbroath, which had a very good fishing industry when I was young, but it has basically gone now. There is some crustacean—lobster and crab—fishing, and there are trip boats that take anglers out to fish in the North sea, but the large-scale fishing industry has gone. It is fair to say that in the past the Scots have had their difficulties with the common fisheries policy, but we are making progress with a new regime. It has meant that Scottish fishermen have made great sacrifices, but the fishing stocks are now beginning to improve, and we do not want to throw that away. There are difficult decisions to be taken all round, but let us not fall out about it—let us get the two sides together and see what we can do so that both can enjoy their fishing.

Kerry McCarthy: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing the debate and putting the case of recreational sea bass anglers so strongly. He spoke with great passion about his fondness for fishing, and he showed particular enthusiasm when he got on to the subject of lugworms. Several hon. Members have highlighted the need not only to conserve sea bass stocks but to restore them to sustainable levels. Hon. Members spoke about what the hon. Gentleman described as the “madness” of the situation in which recreational anglers are treated differently from the commercial industry. Questions have been raised about the extent to which the Government have caved in to the demands of the commercial fishing lobby and the long-term consequences of failing to take tough action. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) described the policy as insane, illogical and fatuous. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), who is a keen angler, said that the ecological case has been consistently put by the recreational side, but has not been listened to by the Government under pressure from the commercial fishing lobby.
	Bass stocks across Europe are in trouble, and urgent action is needed to conserve and rebuild the remaining spawning populations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made clear, she can recognise an environmental disaster when she sees one. The decline is largely the result of commercial overfishing over the last 30 years, rather than of recreational sea angling. Increased fishing effort, targeting of spawning aggregations and juvenile fish, and loss of nursery habitat in estuaries are also factors.

Kerry McCarthy: No. As has been noted, it is only in fairly recent times that sea bass has been commercially fished. The 2004 “Net Benefits” report by the Cabinet
	Office recommended that fisheries departments consider making bass a recreational-only species, although that was not carried through.
	In 2014, ICES recommended an 80% cut in bass mortality across the EU for 2015, having previously recommended a 36% cut for 2014, which was not implemented. Bass landings by UK vessels rose by 30% in 2014, from 772 tonnes to 1,004 tonnes. That was yet another example of expert scientific advice being ignored, with predictable consequences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who has a great deal of experience of the matter as a former DEFRA Minister, said, it is important that we show that we can work with the science. He questioned why there was such a chasm between the science and the policy that was adopted. For 2016, ICES recommended a 90% cut, and some expect that its next advice, due in June this year, will be to recommend a complete moratorium lasting several years. That is what happens when early warnings are not heeded and action is not taken.
	The Marine Conservation Society recommends a full six-month moratorium, followed by more stringent monthly catch limits and a range of avoidance and selectivity measures. As the MCS says, current measures
	“have not come close to the reductions in fishing mortality needed to allow the stock to recover to levels capable of sustainable exploitation”.
	The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has argued that commercial fishermen cannot easily change gear. I have sympathy for that view, but they are in this situation because sea bass stocks have dropped to such a low level. The hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) made a similar point. I entirely accept her argument, but we are at the stage that if drastic action is not taken, the fish will simply not be there for people to catch.
	The UK led in Europe on introducing the 2015 package of emergency measures to protect bass stocks, but it is estimated that these have reduced catches by only 36%. The European Commission accepts that the measures did not go far enough, but its 2016 proposals were watered down by Ministers at the EU Fisheries Council, with commercial sea bass fishing being closed for only two months of the year rather than the six-month moratorium during the spawning period that was proposed by the Commission. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, it was a stunningly bad deal.
	Other Members have questioned the accuracy of the figures and assumptions used; why gillnetting is still being allowed; and the treatment of recreational anglers, who, somewhat perversely, will have to return all bass caught from April to June, but a commercial boat could come alongside and catch and kill the same fish.
	It is clear that the current watered-down proposals will not do enough to protect sea bass stocks. The approach of making somewhat ad hoc, year-on-year decisions, which take on board ICES advice to some extent, but in some cases ignore it, is not a prescription for achieving a sensible long-term policy. It risks ignoring the lessons of previous stock collapses and forcing the introduction of a complete moratorium on all forms of bass fishing.
	Does the Minister accept that the measures to date have not achieved the desired outcome, and that further action is now needed at EU level? Does he agree that over-fishing inevitably has consequences, and that the faster that depleted stocks can recover, the better? Did the UK support the Commission’s call for a six-month moratorium, or were we party to watering down the proposals in the Council of Ministers? If so, does he now think that that was the wrong thing to do? Does he agree that it is important to take national action to tackle illegal, unregulated and unreported landings?
	I understand that the UK has been sent an infringement letter about the poor quality of its commercial landing records. We hear reports of huge numbers of unrecorded landings, a thriving market in black fish, netting rules that are regularly flouted, and a buyers and sellers exemption that allows unlimited, unrecorded sales of 30 kg transactions from licensed vessels to consumers. I hope the Minister can tell us what he plans to do about that, as well as about what the UK can now do to secure a sustainable future for sea bass.

Rory Stewart: As someone who is not the fisheries Minister and whose constituency is stuck on the top of a mountain, I feel I am being drawn from my native rivers and well out from the pelagic realms into very deep water. My main responsibility has been to listen very carefully to this highly intelligent and serious debate. I will communicate all the arguments that have been made to the fisheries Minister and I will make sure that DEFRA takes them into account, responds to them in detail and takes action.
	In the seven minutes I have left, it will not be possible for me to do full justice to all the speeches and interventions. May I say, however, that it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate? One of the most striking things about it, as one can see in the Chamber, is the great strength, good humour and, indeed, good looks of anglers. I have been very struck by the sense of generally energetic, tanned men, such as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is looking cheerful and bouncy. I have a general sense that this sport brings out a stress-free, cheerful life, and that it is to be praised. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) also contributed to the debate in an intervention.
	As someone who is new to the debate about sea bass, it is striking that it is bringing to the surface the very serious tension between EU fisheries policy and UK policy, and between the interests of anglers and the interests of commercial fishermen. Navigating our way through that is quite tough. Very strong statements were made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who particularly stressed her family connection with commercial fishing, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), who took us all the way back to medieval abbots, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), whose speech was perhaps more suitable for mobilising a brigade for war than for a technical discussion of maximum sustainable yields.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) made us think about the role of aquaculture in relation to sea bass. One reason why sea bass is a very striking fish is because it is, or so it seems to an outsider, the next salmon—the next great challenge we face in the debate in the United Kingdom. It is clearly an unusual fish, as people found when they developed aquaculture in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It struggles to get out of the microscopic eggs, it produces juveniles that have difficulty in tracking down their prey, and it has to create its air sack by rising to the surface and filling it with an oxygen bubble. In fact, the species suffered what was essentially an extinction event in the Mediterranean. We are now talking about the north-east Atlantic, but the Mediterranean sea bass was in effect eliminated during the 1960s and 1970s. Most of its presence there now appears to be related to farmed sea bass that have escaped.
	That is why the challenge that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made to us to focus hard on the science is so important. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) focused on biomass, particularly breeding or spawning biomass, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) focused on landings. The shadow Secretary of State pointed to the issues around tonnage and black fish, particularly the landing of 1,100 tonnes in 2014.
	This is a serious subject and the science is at the core of the debate. It does not matter whether we are talking to commercial fishermen or the angling community: the question is, what is the state of sea bass? Of course, sea bass has been on an extraordinary rollercoaster since the early 1980s. We went from minimal tonnage to a single spike year in the 1980s in which we hit nearly 13 million tonnes of biomass. Very warm conditions seem to have created an enormous number of sea bass. Along with changes in our eating patterns, that created the phenomenon, which did not really exist before the 1980s, of commercial fleets going into the Atlantic after sea bass to feed these new tastes. A series of cold winters from 2009 onwards appear to have led to a serious problem in new juvenile production, when combined with the large levels of catching, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out.
	The best analysis that we can currently reach on the subject comes from ICES. We believe that we are catching about 5,000 tonnes and that that is about 30% of an 18,000 tonne biomass. However, if we look at breeding biomass, the figures appear to be lower. I see the hon. Member for Ogmore is looking at a piece of paper. Does he want me to give way briefly?

Rory Stewart: I notice that since the emergency of Daesh, people have really struggled to pronounce ICES. It is causing more and more of a problem. Foreign affairs and defence appear to be entering into fishing debates.
	To answer the hon. Gentleman, the 80% reduction is a reduction from a current maximum sustainable yield, which we believe to be about 13%—that is the best science—from the current catch rates and landings, which seem to be striking at about 30%. The question clearly is whether the measures taken in December Council will achieve those targets. I will come on to that now.
	The key thing is that most of us in this Chamber agree that we need a solution—in fact, everybody in the Chamber probably agrees that we need a solution—that achieves a healthy bass stock. Again, I am very much not speaking as an expert, as this is outside my field. The measures that were taken at the Council were, broadly speaking, steps in the right direction. I think hon. Members would agree with that. The most important actions that were taken—this relates to the question from the hon. Member for Ogmore about the 80% reduction—were those that related to the pelagic fleet. In particular, the measures on drift netting—not on fixed gillnets, but on drift netting in general—were important, especially in relation to pair trawlers.
	One debate in this House is about what kind of impact those measures will have. Will they reduce by 70% or even more the amount that is caught, as one would hope, or does more need to be done? I think that we would also embrace the move from 36 cm to 42 cm. The reason for that, which I do not need to point out to the House, is that we will get more spawning stock because the animals will get to a greater age.

Rory Stewart: That is a very good point, but it is important to remember that one reason why the EU dimension matters is that these fish are very widely distributed. I have talked about the Mediterranean variety, but they exist all the way from the Mediterranean right up to the north Atlantic. About 70% of the catches—it is hard to put a figure on this, but certainly the majority of the catches—in the north Atlantic come from French boats. It is extremely important, therefore, to the UK fisheries that an agreement is reached at the European level if we are to create a sustainable biomass and a maximum sustainable yield on catching.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), in a characteristically energetic, cheerful and engaged speech, attacked the specific conclusions that were reached in relation to fixed gillnets and, in particular, the 1.3 tonne limit and the two-month closure.
	Let me move to a conclusion. There seems to be a consensus in the House that there is more to do and that we must consider our next steps, several of which have emerged from the debate. First, we must all agree that the huge achievement in the Council—I am sorry that more people have not pointed this out—was to get all member states to agree on the figure for the maximum sustainable yield. That is absolutely vital. By getting them to agree on a 13% take, we have a target for 2017-18 that we can use to leverage in exactly the kind of arguments made by my hon. Friend about the tonnage catch for individual boats. We must have those conversations throughout the summer and the rest of the year, and keep relentlessly focused on that target.
	Secondly, the hon. Member for Angus made a powerful point about ensuring that, through the regional advisory council network, we have people in a room who are seriously focused on an agreed target of meeting that maximum sustainable yield—as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall pointed out, that also extends to commercial fishing. The 25-year environment plan that DEFRA is introducing will provide us with an opportunity to lead a pathfinder that will focus on a marine area. Hopefully that will allow us to explore the kind of ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall focused on in relation to striped bass and the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham focused on in relation to Ireland, namely the potential social and economic benefit that can come from developing a sustainable bass angling industry.
	This has been an impressive debate given the level of science, detail and constituency commitments involved. In defence of the deals that are being struck, we have achieved an enormous amount in addressing the biggest problem, which was the pelagic large drift and pair trawlers, and that is a big achievement. We have also achieved an enormous amount in getting agreement at European Council on the maximum sustainable yield, and that target will be vital. We have done that in a way that has attempted to respect the interests of commercial fishermen, and also to engage anglers. If we can achieve that target by 2017-18—and it will be tough—a lot of these issues can be revisited. If we do not achieve the right path towards that target in the coming year, we will have to revisit the catch for commercial fishermen. I call on the patience and understanding of the House as we address an issue that is important not just to this country, and that is the preservation of a unique iconic species: the branzino, the spigola, the lavráki, or for us, the bass.

Heidi Alexander: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During today’s oral statement on the junior doctor contract, the Secretary of State for Health said, “Along with other senior NHS leaders…Sir David has asked me to end the uncertainty for the service by proceeding with the introduction of a new contract”. The Health Service Journal has this afternoon contacted the 20 senior NHS leaders the Health Secretary referred to in his statement, and at least five have replied to say that they do not support his decision to impose a new contract. I am concerned that in making this claim the Health Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how best the Secretary of State can correct the record?

POPPI WORTHINGTON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sarah Newton.)

John Woodcock: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will heed your very appropriate warning on these matters. Indeed, the precise nature of what can and cannot, and should and should not, be disclosed is an important issue in this debate, as I will go on to discuss. I want to thank colleagues who have been right behind the push to try to salvage some justice after the death of Poppi Worthington and to press for the changes that this investigation clearly must lead to, both in the way the police operate in these matters and in social services. I am grateful to the Minister for her time today in the meeting, and it is good to be able to follow on so directly with this public debate.
	Poppi Worthington died in December 2012, when she was 13 months old. We are now in February 2016, so more than three years later I am still having to come to this House for answers. Indeed, it has been only weeks since it has been possible to discuss this matter in public, because of the extensive, deeply surprising and in many ways concerning injunction that was placed upon reporting this matter. That was only partially lifted by Mr Justice Jackson’s ruling last month.
	I will briefly go through some of the key facts, before moving on to the questions I hope the Minister will answer. On 11 December 2012, Poppi Worthington was put to bed by her mother a perfectly healthy child. Eight hours later, she was brought downstairs by her father lifeless and with troubling injuries, including significant bleeding from her anus. She was just 13 months old when she died. It then took until June 2013 for the full post mortem to declare the cause of death as “unascertained”.
	In August 2013—eight months after Poppi’s death—Paul Worthington, her father, was brought in for questioning. That was the first time he had been questioned by police. He had twice before been questioned in relation to different child sexual abuse allegations. Critical evidence, such as Poppi’s clothes and last nappy, had been lost or never gathered by police. The media have reported that Mr Worthington’s laptop was not requested by police at the time, and by the time they eventually asked for it, the device had apparently been sold and sold again and so was unavailable to the police’s store of evidence.
	In March 2014, a fact-finding report was delivered in private in a family court. Court records dated 18 December 2014 make it clear that lawyers acting for Cumbria County Council originally applied for a 15-year ban on the disclosure even of Poppi’s name. In the judge’s words, their case for secrecy included the claim that
	“disclosure of alleged shortcomings by agencies might be unfair to the agencies”.
	The coroner’s inquest in Barrow town hall took just seven minutes to declare her death as “unexplained”. That is less than a quarter of the time we have for this debate.
	It took legal action from a variety of media organisations to force a second inquest, after the first was declared insufficient and therefore unlawful. I pay tribute to several people in the media who have pushed for this tirelessly, particularly Clare Fallon of “BBC North West Tonight” and the North West Evening Mail, whose Justice for Poppi campaign is still gathering signatures on the Downing Street website for the full and independent investigation that I believe is necessary, given the scale and breadth of the failings.
	It then took until July 2015 for the High Court to order the second inquest. In November, Mr Justice Jackson in the family court released part of his original fact-finding judgment from the March before. This revealed that Cumbria police conducted “no real investigation” into Poppi’s death for nine months, despite a senior pathologist at the time raising concerns that Poppi might have suffered a serious sexual assault. It then took until this January—just last month—for Mr Justice Jackson to give his final, very clear verdict: based on medical evidence, he believed that Poppi had suffered a penetrative sexual assault before her death. It was only after this judgment that the second coroner’s inquest could get off the ground. It had been requested in January 2015 and confirmed in July.
	We heard earlier this week that the second inquest would commence in March and that we would find out the timetable soon. Worryingly, the senior coroner has indicated that it might not even be concluded this year. Meanwhile, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has put together a report into failings by Cumbria police that names several officers. The report was finished last March—nearly a full 12 months ago—and leaked to the BBC, but the IPCC is currently still refusing to publish it. Similarly, a serious case review by Cumbria Local Safeguarding Children Board is being withheld, despite the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) making it clear that the publication of neither of these reports could prejudice the coroner’s second inquest.
	In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing the evidence to see if a criminal prosecution is possible. The fact that it is in doubt is surely largely the result of the astounding failures by the police in their handling of this case. The clear question to the police, which must now be taken up, is why they did not act immediately after a pathologist raised the prospect of a serious sexual assault. Why did they not keep hold of vital evidence from the scene?
	Those questions demand serious action from the force itself and from the Government. That brings me to the following serious issues: the nature of and justification for the refusal by the IPCC to publish its completed report; and the appointment and continued tenure of acting Chief Constable Michelle Skeer.
	We are told that lessons have been learnt by the force, but we cannot judge because we are not permitted even to see the IPCC report into what went wrong. We do not know exactly why these failures occurred. We do not know if those responsible have been held properly accountable. Most importantly of all, we do not know if new systems have been put in place to stop this happening again.
	I have written to the IPCC to ask for the release of its report. It refused on the grounds that it could prejudice the second inquest, the disciplinary processes that have yet to be fully undergone or a future criminal investigation. My case to the Minister today is that none of those three potential justifications holds any water.
	Let me deal first with the idea that the report could prejudice the second inquest. The inquest, by definition of course, looks at the cause of death. It looks at the period of time up to death occurring. The IPCC report is concerned exclusively with the police investigation into that death, so there is zero overlap between those two periods of time. One cannot logically prejudice the other. While I understand that the Minister cannot command the IPCC, as it is currently constituted, to do anything—it is an independent body for justifiable reasons—I urge her to comment on her view of the logic of that case.
	Neither is it legally possible to prejudice disciplinary proceedings, which are yet to get under way. That is my clear legal understanding based on evidence I have seen provided to the BBC. I would like the Minister to confirm that. The key failure we face is whether there is the prospect of mounting any criminal investigation at all.
	When I was first able to question the Minister a couple of weeks ago after Mr Speaker granted me an urgent question on this matter, I called for a separate force to be brought in, given the manifest failures of the original investigation. I wanted a separate force to be brought in to take over this investigation. The Minister and I have been able to discuss this outside the Chamber and I understand that she does not yet have the necessary information to make a judgment on that, but part of the necessary information will be the IPCC report that is currently being withheld. Every day that goes by, the evidence trail gets colder, and every day without justice for Poppi is a day in which her killer, if she was unlawfully killed, is able to walk free.
	Will the Minister confirm that she wants to see the report as quickly as possible, preferably through full and open publication? If that is not possible, is she prepared to ask for a private copy like that provided to the police and crime commissioner, who has confirmed that, although he is not allowed to refer to it publicly, he is able to use it to make judgments?
	It has become apparent that the police and crime commissioner, Mr Richard Rhodes, had not received the report when he endorsed the temporary promotion of Michelle Skeer from deputy chief constable to acting chief constable after Chief Constable Jerry Graham was forced to stand down temporarily on the grounds of ill health. Regulations state that the PCC should be given an unpublished report only if it relates to the chief constable, but he was not made aware of the contents of this report, even though he was required to endorse the temporary promotion of a woman—this is clear, because the report has been leaked to and reported on by the BBC, and it has been shown to me—whom it directly names and criticises for her actions in this case. She is now overseeing the force’s path of improvement from the case, despite the fact that she was directly implicated in it.
	Is the Minister as troubled as I am by this situation, and will she agree to re-examine the regulations and procedures, to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen again? If a report relates to someone who may be promoted to the position of chief constable, the police and crime commissioner should automatically be given sight of that important evidence.
	I have come to the conclusion that it is unsustainable for Michelle Skeer to continue in the post of acting chief constable, because that is to the detriment of restoring confidence in the police force and the process of change that it now needs to carry out. She was named in the report from which the police force needs to recover, and the manner of her appointment was flawed. The Minister will probably say that that judgment is not for her, but for the PCC to make. However, if the PCC reaches that view, will the Minister at least pledge to give him her Department’s assistance in finding an alternative acting chief constable while the permanent chief constable returns to health?
	These are incredibly difficult and distressing matters. No professional intentionally allows such horrific cases to go without justice. Police officers go to work to prevent and to solve crimes, and social workers go to work to protect children, but that has not happened in this case. Although this is a difficult and complex issue, the Government face a binary choice: either they must be prepared to step in and do all they can to increase transparency and to remove the logjam and the cloud of secrecy hanging over the case, or they will end up being part of a system that perpetuates that secrecy.

Karen Bradley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing the debate, and thank him for the points that he, along with others, has raised about this deeply sad and troubling matter today and previously. He is an excellent constituency Member, and I know how hard he works for his constituents. The fact that he is continuing to campaign on this deeply troubling matter is a credit to him, and a credit to the constituents who elected him. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the advice that you gave at the beginning of the debate. I shall bear your words in mind.
	The circumstances surrounding the death of Poppi Worthington are extremely distressing and disturbing. I am sure that other Members who have read the press reports and court findings have found them as profoundly upsetting and moving as I have, and I am sure that we share a determination to try and discover what happened in Poppi’s case, Any failings in the police response, or the response of any other agency involved, must be identified, and action must be taken to ensure that they are never repeated.
	However, as I made clear in my comments to the House during a debate on this matter on 20 January, I cannot comment on this case in detail. Indeed, it has become even more crucial for me to maintain that position since the announcement on Tuesday by senior coroner David Llewelyn Roberts that the inquest into Poppi’s death will reopen on 18 March. I know that Members will share my primary concern that, in discussing this case, we should not inadvertently prejudice a much-needed judicial process. The House will understand that, to that end—whatever my personal views may be on the terrible nature of Poppi’s death—I am constrained by the ongoing proceedings, and am therefore unable to make any detailed comment today. I urge others, in the Chamber and outside, to consider and take heed of that approach.
	Members will be aware of the allegations of police failings in the original criminal investigation of Poppi’s death in 2012, which have been investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC looked into whether that specific investigation had been conducted thoroughly and appropriately, and whether investigative opportunities to obtain key evidence had been identified and acted on appropriately. It is, of course, the role of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to assess the overall functioning of the force.
	The IPCC’s subsequent investigation report was given to Cumbria constabulary on 1 April last year, so that it could consider the report and determine what action to take. I should point out that HMIC will have regard to the force’s response to the IPCC report in the course of its inspections. All forces are inspected annually on their overall effectiveness, and, in addition, HMIC has a rolling national child protection inspection programme which looks specifically at each force’s child protection arrangements.
	I fully understand the level of public interest in Poppi’s death, and I fully understand why there have been calls by, among others, the hon. Gentleman for the IPCC report to be published immediately. I know that the IPCC has written to the hon. Gentleman to explain its position, offering to meet him to discuss the matter further. I have met IPCC officials to discuss the matter, and I understand its position. I appreciate that we must balance the interest of the public in these matters with the wider public interest in ensuring that the integrity of ongoing and any future proceedings is not jeopardised. The IPCC has made it clear to me that it will not release the report while disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. It has also told me that the second inquest may be a jury inquest, and that it does not wish to release the report until there is certainty about whether that is the case, because otherwise there might be prejudice in regard to the inquest.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman and I discussed that point earlier. I sympathise with his position, but that is the IPCC’s position and its guidance. I should make the point that I want to see justice done and to uncover the failings. As long as the people who are able to find that out and make those decisions have all the information available to them, that is my priority. I do not want anything to jeopardise that and I do not want anything that means that justice is not done. As long as the people who make those decisions and who can get to the bottom of the situation know what happened, that is the priority.

John Woodcock: I thank the Minister once again for giving way—this will be the last time I intervene. I hear what she says on that point, but if she were to see the report in private would that be useful to her in making a judgment on whether another force ought to be brought in? Surely it would be useful for her to see that information in private.

Karen Bradley: I met the IPCC this week. It does not give reports out and has to wait for the appropriate moment. There is not a process by which a Minister can see those reports. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to see reports before it is appropriate for them to be released to the public.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I should explain that there is no obligation for the IPCC to provide an investigation report to the police and crime commissioner as part of any due diligence exercise on a potential promotion candidate within a force. The IPCC’s obligation to provide that report to the police and crime commissioner applies only when it relates to the alleged misconduct of a chief officer for whom the PCC has a statutory responsibility. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the PCC having full sight of all information when an appointment is made. I have asked officials to look at whether anything can be done, because it could involve somebody going to a different force—they do not have to be within the same force—and it is important that PCCs who are considering a candidate for a chief officer role have all the information pertinent to the appointment when they make the decision. The hon. Gentleman asked about advice that can be given by the Home Office to the PCCs who are looking for new recruits. I assure him that any PCC who approaches the Home Office for advice on recruiting a new chief officer will receive that advice.
	I stand with those who urgently want to understand what has happened in this case, but I also want to see justice served and the truth to be established. We must be careful in our haste to see justice done that we do not inadvertently prevent it from being done. In addition to the inquest into Poppi’s death and the ongoing disciplinary proceedings at Cumbria constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing the file on Poppi’s case to decide whether to launch a criminal prosecution. To avoid prejudice in any of those cases, the IPCC intends to publish its report after the conclusion of all the proceedings I have mentioned. That may disappoint some, but we must recognise the rationale for that decision.
	The IPCC has investigated allegations of police failings in relation to Poppi’s death, but the criminal investigation remains a matter for Cumbria constabulary. I know there have been calls for that investigation to be reopened and for a fresh one to commence. It is of course open to the police to review the investigation, but that is an operational decision for the force that will need to be considered in the light of what, if anything, a review could realistically achieve. It is for the chief constable of Cumbria to consider whether the investigation should be reopened and whether another force should take on the investigation in order to maintain public confidence. Whatever my personal convictions, it would not be appropriate for the Home Office to intervene in this situation.
	I once again thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue and extend the offer of continued dialogue and meetings. We all want to get to the bottom of what happened and to see justice done. I acknowledge that many questions have still to be answered in this terrible case. Like other Members, I want to see the outcome of those proceedings. I look to the outcome with interest, but I want them dealt with as speedily as possible.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.